The spinless Mob...

...The term is borrowed from ornithology. Every so often birds in a flock will turn, as one, on a perceived threat (either outside, or inside their group) and harass some luckless victim into flight or exile. It often seems less a response to genuine danger, than a reflexive action making for collective cohesion ("we're all in this together - except that bastard over there. Let's get him"). The application of this avian behaviour to workplace situations was first made by a German social psychologist, Heinz Leymann, in the 1980s. Dr Leymann defined human mobbing as "an impassioned, collective campaign by co-workers to exclude, punish, and humiliate a targeted worker" - usually without appropriate cause...

From: Not strictly for the birds

...In 'On Aggression' (1966), Konrad Lorenz (1903-1989), the Austrian-German founder of ethology, described mobbing among birds and animals, attributing it to instincts rooted in the Darwinian struggle to survive. In his view, we humans are subject to similar innate impulses but capable of bringing them under rational control. He jointly won the Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine in 1973...

From: Workplace Mobbing in Academe

Rt Hon Mr. Johnson and Rt Hon Mr. Rammell, what will you do about it?

Are you aware? Do you care? How many more good academics have to suffer before you realise the extent of the problem? If you don't do something about it, then who will? Does 'New Labour' and 'New Britain' tolerate injustice and suffering?

To whom are managers (Principals, Vice-Principals, Chancellors, Vice-Chancellors, Deans, Governors etc) accountable for bullying and victimising good teaching staff? HEFCE, QAA, the Governing bodies?

Various surveys, reports and research identify the extent of the problem, but... oh, no, please do not give us another token government initiative. Or perhaps you will say that the DTI is dealing with it. Perhaps you can say that wrong-done academics can always go to their union, or all the way to an Employment Tribunal. How many cases do you know that have gone that far and succeeded?

How many brilliant academic careers have ended due to bullying (mobbing)?

You want 50% participation rates but you are not addressing work-placed bullying (for your information also known as 'mobbing').

May we politely suggest you start informing yourselves by visiting:

http://www.port.ac.uk/research/workplacebullying/
and checking the work of Professor Charlotte Rayner, and also

http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/%7ekwesthue/mobbing.htm
and checking the work of Professor Kenneth Westhues
----------------------------
The Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP
Secretary of State for Education and Skills
Department for Education and Skills
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BT
UK

Email: johnsona@parliament.uk
----------------------------
The Rt Hon Bill Rammell MP
Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education
Department for Education and Skills
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BT
UK

Email: rammellb@parliament.uk

Financial impact on [educational] organisations

...At an organisational level, bullying results in an unsafe work environment, which can lead to prosecution under the Occupational Safety and Health legislation. Consequences include disrupted teamwork; poor morale; reduced student and staff loyalty/ commitment; impact on recruitment/ retention – training for new staff (extra costs); lost labour, increased worker’s compensation payments and premiums; lower efficiency/productivity; increased absenteeism, sick leave, staff turnover; and poor employer public image, and may also result in reduced student applications and withdrawals (WorkSafe WA, 2003).

Specifically, the estimated financial costs to Curtin University of Technology of bullying, using a range of prevalence rates, reflecting studies reported in the international literature, across 3000 staff at $20,000 average costs per case (see McCarthy “Costs of occupational violence and bullying” in McCarthy & Mayhew, 2004) is calculated as follows:

Study: Leymann (1997) - Prevalence: 3.5% - Cost estimate pa based on 3000 staff: A$2,100,000

Study: Irish Taskforce (2000) - Prevalence: 7% - Cost estimate pa based on 3000 staff: A$4,200,000

Study: Hoel et al (2001) - Prevalence: 10% - Cost estimate pa based on 3000 staff: A$6,000,000

This university site also includes:

a) Self-Audit Checklist for the Complainant, and
b) Self-Audit Checklist for the Person Accused of Bullying
c) Guidance Notes for Managers & Supervisors

From: Curtin University of Technology, Australia: http://edusafe.edu.au/curtin/bullying.html

Ever wondered how incompetent [academic] managers got so far?

10 Steps to kissing your way to the top

1. Never talk bad about the current boss to anyone! This includes fellow coworkers who may start the conversation. You never know who's listening and you never know who will say something.

2. Never, ever confide personal details about yourself to anyone at work. Even the most trusted coworker will turn around and blab his mouth all over the place. People usually take "Don't tell anybody, but..." as "Don't tell anybody, but if you do, make sure they don't tell anybody." Within twenty minutes, rumors usually get around to the secretary who's sleeping with the boss. After that, you're off the promotion list.

Remember, just because you're not under arrest, doesn't mean that everything you say won't be twisted around and used against you. The only question that remains is when and by whom.

3. Never, ever make friends at work! Once you've kissed your way to the top, you may end up having to fire some of these people. It's a lot less painless if you've kept your distance.

4. If your immediate boss is retiring or quitting and you have your eye on his position, find out who's going to be making the replacement decision. Very rarely will it be your boss. If your boss is popular with upper management, have him [her] put in a good word for you and proceed with the second half of the next step.

6. If upper management is happy your boss is leaving, talk to your boss' boss and kiss his [her] ass. A lot of times you don't have to wait for your boss to quit. If you can nonchalantly get in good with the higher ups, you may end up taking your boss' job anyway. Don't offer suggestions on how to better run the place, those are too easily shot down. Tell him that your mother's maiden name is the same as his last name and that you're probably related. This technique is especially powerful if he [she] has some off the wall ethnic name! Find out which church he goes to or what organizations he belongs to and "just by coincidence" run into him [her] at one of these places. "Wow, we think so much alike!" or "we have so much in common" is a good ice breaker.

7. As soon as the decision making person trusts you, you can eliminate any competition by saying things like, "You know, I think so-and-so would be a good manager, but...and I really don't think I should bring it up...but, I've heard him [her] say that if he [she] was promoted, he's going to start his [her] own business and take our client base with him [her]. But please, keep this between me and you." Believe me, as long as you can say it with a straight face, so-and-so will be cleaning the corporate toilets the following Monday!

Once you've gotten your boss' position, start kissing higher level asses by repeating the steps starting with number 5, in addition to using the advanced ass kissing techniques that follow.

8. Hire yourself a whipping boy [or girl]; someone who's young, impressionable and expendable. Tell him crap like, "You can go far in this company. Just follow my lead." His [her] main function will be to spy on your subordinates, eliminate anyone trying to kiss his [her] way into your position in addition to taking the blame for all of your mistakes.

9. Make yourself look important. Leave instructions before going home to "page me if there's any problems." Have your whipping boy start some type of bogus crisis that only you can fix. After coming back to work, have your whipping boy [girl] call corporate and inform them that you've come back and are handling the problem. If you know a few customers personally, have them write a letter of praise to the company President [Dean, Vice-Chancellor, Principal etc] telling him [her] how you saved the day.

10. Make yourself look good on paper, too. Ask for an increased budget, then lay some dead weight off, order cheaper supplies and replace menial jobs with state-sponsored mentally retarded workers. Then, next quarter brag about how much you came in under budget and how much money you saved the company! Also mention that given the opportunity you could do the same for the whole company! Can't you just see the CEOs' [Dean, Vice-Chancellor, Principal etc] mouths just watering?

From: Kiss Ass, A Worker's Guide

[Top right poster from: http://www.despair.com/viewall.html]

Academic unions have their head in the sand...

'Whistling While They Work': Enhancing the Theory and Practice of Internal Witness Management in Public Sector Organisations

What Is The 'Whistling While They Work' Project?

'Whistling While They Work' is a three-year collaborative national research project into the management and protection of internal witnesses, including whistleblowers, in the Australian public sector.

The project is led by Griffith University and jointly funded by:

• the Australian Research Council,
• the six participating universities, and
• 14 industry partners including some of Australia 's most important integrity and public sector management agencies.

The protection of whistleblowers and other internal witnesses to corruption, misconduct and maladministration is a great unsolved problem of public sector governance.

This first national study of internal witness management is setting out to describe and compare organisational experience under varying public interest disclosure regimes across the Australian public sector.

By identifying and promoting current best practice in workplace responses to public interest whistle-blowing, the project will use the experience and perceptions of internal witnesses and first- and second-level managers to identify more routine strategies for preventing, reducing and addressing reprisals and other whistleblowing-related conflicts.

More info at: http://www.griffith.edu.au/centre/slrc/whistleblowing/

Bullying Christians Demand the Right to Mistreat Others On Campus...

First the letter to the editor from clerics and other religious representatives:

The Times, November 24, 2006

Student union tactics are intolerant and unlawful

Sir, Christian students at many of our universities are facing considerable opposition and discrimination in violation of their rights of freedom of expression, freedom of belief and freedom of association. In recent times, some student guilds, in Exeter, Birmingham and Edinburgh in particular, have changed their anti-discrimination provisions to discriminate against Christian students. We believe this to be intolerant and unlawful, and that the Christian unions currently suspended by the student guilds or associations should be reinstated with full rights as a student society forthwith.

Of course university student guilds and associations have a responsibility to ensure that official societies are run in a proper and lawful manner. However, this does not give them, or anyone else, the right to restrict or change the essential beliefs of those societies, or impose as leaders people who do not share those core beliefs.

Christian union meetings and events are open to all students to attend. In fact, as faith-sharing organisations, CUs specifically invite people who do not share the Christian faith to attend their meetings. Therefore, there is no restriction imposed on who can and who cannot join the CU.

However, the executive committees of CUs act rather like charity trustees, and as such, they are responsible for two things: first, that funds donated to the CU are used only to further the stated objects, and secondly, that the object of the union, the proclamation of the Christian gospel (as understood by millions of orthodox Christians around the world), is advanced.

It would therefore be inappropriate for anyone who does not agree with the aims, objectives and beliefs to be executive committee members, although it would be totally in order for them to attend CU events, Bible studies, discussion groups or missions, and put forward their views with conviction and passion. Thus the only restrictions limit the right to amend the constitution and select leaders to those who can affirm the core beliefs of the society.

THE RIGHT REV MICHAEL SCOTT-JOYNT Bishop of Winchester, THE RIGHT REV MICHAEL NAZIR-ALI Bishop of Rochester, THE RIGHT REV PETER FORSTER Bishop of Chester, THE RIGHT REV GEORGE CASSIDY Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, THE RIGHT REV JONATHAN GLEDHILL Bishop of Lichfield, THE RIGHT REV STEPHEN VENNER Bishop of Dover, THE RIGHT REV PETE BROADBENT Bishop of Willesden, THE RIGHT REV CRISPIAN HOLLIS Roman Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth and lead Bishop of Higher Education, LORD CAREY OF CLIFTON Former Archbishop of Canterbury, CANON DR CHRISTINA BAXTER Chairman of the House of Laity, Church of England General Synod, PROFESSOR NIGEL M. DE S. CAMERON Centre for Bioethics and Public Policy, London, PROFESSOR JOHN WYATT Professor of Neonatal Paediatrics, University College London, DR DON HORROCKS Head of Public Affairs Evangelical Alliance, ANDREA MINICHIELLO WILLIAMS Public Policy Officer, Lawyers Christian Fellowship, PETER SAUNDERS General Secretary, Christian Medical Fellowship, THE REV RICHARD CUNNINGHAM Chief Executive Officer Universities & Colleges Christian Fellowship, DR PETER MAY Chairman, Universities & Colleges Christian Fellowship

---------------------------------------------------------

Then coverage by the National Secular Society:

Bullying Christians Demand the Right to Mistreat Others On Campus

Senior Bishops of the Church of England, and the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, have defended the right of several university Christian Unions to practise discrimination against non-Christians and gay people. Unions in Exeter, Birmingham and Edinburgh have been prohibited from using university faculties and in some cases from being recognised as a club because of allegations that they are discriminating.

In a letter to The Times, the clerics used the usual tactic of presenting themselves as the victims when they have been caught out discriminating against others. “[Christian students] are facing considerable opposition and discrimination in violation of their rights of freedom of expression, freedom of belief and freedom of association,” wrote the Anglican bishops of Winchester, Rochester, Chester, Southwell and Nottingham, Lichfield, Dover and Willesden, along with the Roman Catholic church’s lead Bishop on Higher Education, and with signatories from academics and representatives from national Christian organisations.

They claim that the Student Guilds/Associations, in Exeter, Birmingham and Edinburgh in particular, have changed their anti-discrimination provisions to discriminate against Christian students. In a complete reversal of the true situation, the bishops say the action by the Guilds is “intolerant and unlawful, and that the Christian Unions currently suspended should be re-instated with full student union society rights.”

Last Monday, Christian students at Exeter University served a Letter before Action upon the university’s Registrar, and on the Student Guild after it was suspended for being too exclusive. The letter stated that unless the CU was fully reinstated with full student society rights within 14 days, legal action would be taken against the University, the Guild and Guild officers personally, under the Human Rights Act, and that substantial damages would be claimed against them.

At Edinburgh University, a course looking at orthodox Biblical teaching on relationship, sex and marriage has been banned from being taught on campus because it recommended literature on how homosexuals can be “cured” by prayer. The Students’ Association claimed the “Pure” course was homophobic, and breached the S.A.’s and the universities anti-discrimination policies.

CU representatives are due to meet the vice-chancellor this week and a further legal letter is likely to be served.

-----------------------------------

The central questions are: Who is bullying whom? Who is really intolerant? Who has empathy, and who shows understanding and acceptance?

The Arch Sociopath bully, the Wannabe small time Mob Leader and 'Quality' control bodies...

The Arch Sociopath bully has his/her own mob of incompetent people. They are all scared of him/her. So the Wannabe small time Mob Leader does the dirty job, gets promotion and lives a good life... Job and pension are assured... Just pull and twist the knife when needed.

The Wannabe small time Mob Leader serves without loyalty and without respect the arch sociopath bully; knows the truth. Has his/her own smaller mob; a hierarchy of mobs. Feels empowered by the terror he/she can inflict.

The Mob gives legitimacy to the Wannabe small time Mob Leader. There are no morals, there are no ethics... just an alliance of incompetent people who have drinks together...

Academic bureaucracy is geared towards covering up this mess. Honesty and justice are lost... Good academics suffer in silence... and the 'quality' government agencies do nothing... The wreckage is phenomenal. All hidden from the public eye...

The victims suffer. Some commit suicide. Often never recover, never work again in their chosen area.

Farlie's Law and Skorupski's Law are based on real people, on real experiences. As Tim Field said 'Those that can, do. Those that can't, bully'.

Farlie's Law: If in one's professional career one reaches a position way above what is merited, then one can only maintain this position or progress further by surrounding oneself with incompetent people.

Skorupski's Law: The more vain one's ambition, the more redundant one's grasp of morality.

The 'quality' and finance control bodies, like the Quality Assurance Agency (UK), HEFCE (UK) and Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (UK) have responsibility and obligation to do something about all of this. Their ignorance and unwillingness to act is costing far more than they can imagine.

Who will stand up for the victims? Bullied academics have nowhere to go. We need a truly independent body to deal with all of this. The QAA and HEFCE don't have what it takes because they are too close to the system.

Don't suffer in silence - time has come to write to:

The Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson MP
Secretary of State for Education and Skills
Department for Education and Skills
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BT, UK

Too timid to make a stand for [academic] freedom

Geoffrey Alderman, Published: 17 November 2006, Times Higher Education Supplement

Fear of managers and ministers leaves the QAA reluctant to ask if academics can speak freely, argues Geoffrey Alderman.

This year, I plucked up the courage to suggest that the Quality Assurance Agency extend its code of practice to include a section on academic freedom. At present, the code is completely silent on the matter, and its inspectors are not encouraged - and are certainly under no obligation - to inquire whether an institution undergoing review even has a policy on this most fundamental principle.

So, in future, could its staff start to audit academic freedom when they do their rounds of the UK's universities, I inquired? The response was swift and dismissive.

To add another section to the code would, I was told, incur the wrath of the Better Regulation Task Force, the Quality Assurance Framework Review Group and a host of other quangos. In any case, I was informed, there is apparently a "waiting list" of allegedly more important topics to be added to the audit agenda. And, no doubt in an attempt to kill my initiative stone dead, the QAA added that if a university was indeed acting illegally, "then the remedy lies in the courts".

Academics are a disputatious people. More than that, the ability to dispute, to question and to challenge is fundamental to the purposes of the academic community.

These truths need not be laboured. But what is perhaps less self-evident is the obligation incurred by all reputable institutions of higher education to provide and maintain an infrastructure that supports the right of its academic staff to be disputatious: to challenge received wisdom and to challenge the manner in which institutions order their own affairs so as to deliver this freedom, which is basic to the mission of every reputable university.

Unless an institution guarantees its staff - and students - the right to express themselves freely within the law of the land and without fear of institutional reprisal, it cannot rightly claim to be of good quality.

Over the past few years, a number of high-profile cases have put this obligation to uphold freedom in question. Whistleblowers have been harassed, bullied and dismissed, their careers often ruined in the process.

Academics with unpopular opinions have been suspended, their "voluntary" resignations obtained through strong-arm managerialism and hushed up through the imposition of "gagging" clauses in their severance arrangements.

The QAA cannot be unaware of these pressures and of the oppressive atmospheres in which they flourish. The excuses offered to me for the agency's inaction were frankly absurd. If it really is politically impossible at the moment to add a new section to the code, why not work academic freedom into an existing section - that dealing with "Student complaints on academic matters", say? Why not simply enlarge this section so that it reads "Student and staff complaints on academic matters"?

Another way of squeezing academic freedom on to the audit agenda would be to include it as a heading in collaborative provision audits: does the collaborative partner give the same academic freedom to its staff as is given (or not) by the awarding institution?

As for the legal argument, this too lacks substance. If the QAA is going to say that where there is a law it will leave the law to get on with it, why audit student support and guidance? Students are now fee-payers, so they can have recourse to consumer protection legislation and the Trade Descriptions Act, to say nothing of the excellent work being done by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.

If the QAA is reluctant to tread any path that leads or could lead to a legal remedy, why permit auditors to inquire into such matters as equal opportunities and student disability support? Indeed, in the consumer-driven society to which UK universities must now adapt, there are very few of the QAA's famous "precepts" that cannot be tested in the courts.

The reluctance of the QAA to concern itself with academic freedom has nothing to do with the lame excuses that I have been given. It has everything to do with a congenital unwillingness to question the autonomy of university managers and the impact of government policies.

It is for this reason that British university audits do not address salary levels and that none of the QAA's critical reports on the delivery of higher education in the further education sector asks whether the quantum of government funding of this provision might not be ultimately to blame for evident shortcomings.

The truth is that the QAA is the creature of Government. A truly independent agency would feel free to add these important items to its checklist.

Geoffrey Alderman is senior vice-president of American InterContinental University, London. He writes in a personal capacity.

What do academic colleagues ever do about workplace bullying?

The Abilene Paradox - Why Team Members Won't or Can't Help

If groups (call them work teams) are powerful enough to bend individuals to their will, to get inside individuals' heads and make them doubt their own competence, to make them do things that hurt themselves, then logic would dictate that fellow workers who see a bully hurting someone would run to the rescue. Right? Wrong!

The strange tale of people acting in groups and influencing individuals now gets stranger. For many reasons, people witnessing the injustice of workplace bullying rarely act. They either will not act, by choice, or can not act, for reasons often unknown to them and to the target who could certainly use their help...

Abilene Paradox

Jerry Harvey honored his Texas roots when he named this phenomenon. The group dynamic is perhaps the most relevant to understanding why bullies can be witnessed by so many people and still get away with it. Imagine a committee of bright people making a stupid decision. We know from talking with each person alone that each and every one of them thinks it's a stupid thing to do. When the committee votes, however, they choose to do the stupid thing!

Later, usually much later, when the decision backfires, the committee tears itself apart in its search for a culprit. The group desperately needs someone or something to blame, long after the very preventable decision was made. This describes a group in agreement, not in conflict. They all agree privately, and individually, about the true state of affairs. They do not communicate their feelings to one another, however. Then publicly, in the presence of each other, they all deny the agreement that they don't know exists among them. That's the paradox: private vs. public versions of reality. In fact, this is the mismanagement of agreement, not disagreement. It's all made possible by a public silence regarding what each individual knows to be true. Sound like where you work?

Take the bullying example. All the co-workers of the bully's target know what is happening. If interviewed alone and free from retaliation, each would deplore the obvious pain the target is experiencing. However, in group settings, even without the bully present, they don't do the right thing. When together, they don't plan how to use their group power to overcome a lone bully. Instead, they ignore the rampant mistreatment by not communicating their positions or feelings publicly.

If the target later pursues legal action and investigators on her behalf interview the team that made up the hostile environment, the finger pointing begins. Why does this happen?

Jerry Harvey traces it to people's overblown negative fantasies. That is, they imagine the worst possible, riskiest outcome from confronting the bully--they would lose their jobs, the bully would turn on them, they would have a heart attack, the bully would kill their children, and so on. With a mind full of negative thoughts like these, mostly about events that would never occur, the individuals act very conservatively as a group. As a group, they want to take no risk. So, they do the wrong thing, all for lack of talking about it openly. They let bad things happen to the target that they believe, as individuals, should not happen. Sick? No, simply human nature's aversion to risk thanks to an exaggerated imagination that limits thinking about possibilities.

"Abilene" is the Texas city in the Abilene paradox. It refers to the retelling by Harvey of a lousy decision by his family. On a hot summer day, the family piled into a car without airconditioning and drove too many to Abilene to try a new diner. The heat was oppressive; the food was lousy. But no one dared to speak in those terms until later that night back home. Finally, the matriarch of the family broke the silence by complaining about the food. Then everyone chimed in with their complaint--the car was hot, it was stupid to try an unknown restaurant.

It turns out that no one wanted to go in the first place, but no one said so when it mattered. Eventually, they all blamed the father for suggesting the drive. To Harvey, whenever a group is about to do the wrong thing, despite knowing it's the wrong thing, it is a group "on the road to Abilene."

Silent, inactive witnesses to the bullying of others is a group "on the road to Abilene."

From: Workplace Bullying Institute