Leadership close to the bone...

The web site of the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (LFHE) in the UK, states:

'...The Leadership Foundation provides a dedicated service of support and advice on leadership, governance and management for all the UK’s universities and Higher Education colleges... the Leadership Foundation is committed to developing and improving the management and leadership skills of existing and future leaders of Higher Education... In the first 3/4 years, our major programme of development is supported by £10m from the four UK funding bodies...'

If you download the membership directory at the site, you will notice that each member university has an allocated 'Leadership and Management Development' person, usually a senior manager. So you can check who the lucky 'Leadership and Management Development' person is in your university, and we'll let you decide on the leadership qualities of these individuals.

The LFHE site also states: '...Top Management Programme (TMP) is a personal and professional development programme for those operating at the most strategic levels in HEIs. Participants should be responsible for a substantial area of the institution’s operations, in either an academic or an administrative role... TMP is a tailored opportunity for those with the potential to reach the top, to prepare for the top positions.

TMP includes :

• Personal diagnostics - including 360 degree feedback
• Focused workshop sessions
• Case Studies and simulations
• Group and individual projects
• Action Learning
• Coaching...

The Head of Department (HOD) programme is a six-day development programme, delivered in two modules, for those who are newly appointed to head of department posts in academic, administrative or professional services environments within higher education. It is designed to engage and develop those who are new to the operational challenges of leading and managing an academic, research or support team.

HOD focuses upon the fundamental attributes of personal leadership and its application in the complex organisational context of the higher education sector. The programme provides a framework exploring the practise of leadership, methods to approach challenging staffing issues and how change can be managed and achieved...

Outcomes

Participants will:

Examine the application of leadership and management in order to achieve organisational aims [these could be anything] and improve their own performance [we'll vote for that...]

Ask ‘what is strategy?’ and consider how to move beyond purely operational management to become a more strategic thinker [pigs fly...]

Explore the cross institutional ‘big picture’ of UK and global HE leadership [how to make money...]

Learn how to identify, strengthen and deploy leadership styles and gain greater awareness of the impact on others of their actions [self-reflection!]

Investigate risk and systematic management of processes and outputs [sorry, but incapable...]

Appraise successful mechanisms for managing conflict [pigs fly...]

Consider the factors which affect and support personal and organisational performance [yes, like their own ignornace and incompetence...]

Enhance their ability to give and receive constructive feedback [we love this one, academic freedom of expression!]

Develop an objective picture of their current leadership strengths and developmental needs [useless and incompetent...]

Formulate and prioritise a personal development plan [yes, there will be a test tomorrow morning...]

Gain an effective network of relationships with peers on the programme [liaise with other bullies...]

Special features

Personal diagnostics which will enable participants to appreciate their approach to leading and managing change [may we suggest they look for another job...]

Practical exercises, simulation, case studies and comparisons [what about some real teaching...]

Cross institutional understanding of leadership practice in UK HEIs [downsizing...]

Using Shakespeare’s Henry V, a session facilitated by Olivier Mythodrama allow participants to explore and apply the notion of inspirational leadership and engagement with their teams [Zzzzzzzzzzzz...]

Now you would have thought that with all this dedicated assistance (and all the money available), that our academic managers would become/are enlightened leaders. But there is more...

The icing on the cake:

'...Senior management teams face the challenge of creating and maintaining a positive working environment in their institutions. Sustaining a positive working environment and culture is a key objective of university policies, and many feel that the best way to achieve this is through emotional intelligence. Many factors may work against this including:

• poor performance management systems
• harassment
• bullying
• unmanageable stress levels

The Leadership Foundation recognises that these factors may have a negative impact upon the performance of the institution and have a detrimental effect upon working relationships. The quality of leadership can play a key role in creating the climate and conducive to a positive working environment...'

May we suggest that some academic 'leaders' lack emotional intelligence and they will never get it through any 'leadership' workshop - at a cost of £250 - and not even through a brain transplant...

Dealing With Bullies [In Academia]

Consider this scenario:

You are now the head of a large unit in which you have been a faculty member for many years. Until you became head, you were not fully aware of the problems with one of your colleagues, Professor Choler. Now you feel besieged by complaints from staff members about his treatment of them.

You remember, over the years, having received Choler’s periodic e-mail messages — sent to the whole department — complaining about one matter or another, but since most of them didn’t affect you directly, you paid little attention. You also knew that Choler could be unpleasant at faculty meetings, but he didn’t attend very often, and most of his complaints were ruled out of order.

Now both the messages and the conduct have become your business. In his typical e-mail message, Choler describes a problem, personalizes the fault to a single individual, and recommends a solution that usually involves humiliation, if not discipline, for that person. The people he targets (or, in some cases, their union representatives) are the ones complaining to you and demanding that you take action.

In addition, a few faculty members have asked you to “get this e-mail thing under control". At meetings Choler uses the same general tactic, usually going after a particular person with strong language and in a loud voice. This makes some people so uncomfortable that they will not attend a meeting if they see him in the room. There is no evidence in the files that anyone has ever spoken to Professor Choler about his e-mail tirades or his conduct in meetings.

What do you do?

Some difficult people are merely minor irritants: Others learn to avoid them as much as possible, and the overall working environment is not badly compromised. But a person who targets others, makes threats (direct or indirect), insists on his or her own way all the time, or has such a hair-trigger temper that colleagues walk on eggshells to avoid setting it off, can paralyze a department.

In the worst cases, this conduct can create massive dysfunction as the department finds itself unable to hold meetings, make hiring decisions, recruit new members, or retain valued ones. When I first got involved in helping department heads cope with such people, my colleagues and I used concepts and approaches we gleaned from studies of bullies.

The bullies I have encountered in the academic environment come in many forms, from those who present themselves as victims, all the way to classic aggressors who rely on physical intimidation. In academe and other settings populated by “knowledge workers,” one often encounters other kinds of bullies as well, including “memo bullies” (who send regular missives to a long mailing list) and “insult bullies” (destructive verbal aggressors).

Whatever their approaches, bullies are people who are willing to cross the boundaries of civilized behavior that inhibit others.

They value the rewards brought by aggression and generally lack guilt, believing their victims provoked the attacks and deserve the consequences. Their behavior prompts others to avoid them, which means that, in the workplace, bullies are likely to become effectively unsupervised.

I’ve seen secretaries, faculty members, and businesspeople who were so unpleasant to deal with that they were neither given the same duties as others in their environment nor held accountable for the duties they did hold. Aggressor bullies fit the usual idea of a bully: They threaten to beat you up if you don’t give them your lunch money. Victim bullies, in contrast, demand your lunch money because of some harm they claim you’ve done to them.

While many workplaces have bullies, institutions of higher education may be especially vulnerable to them because of some of the distinctive characteristics of academe. First, bullies flourish in the decentralized structure of universities: the isolation of so many microclimates, from laboratories to small departments, creates many opportunities for a bully to run roughshod over colleagues. Then too, the bullies of academe typically manipulate the concepts of academic freedom and collegiality with flair. The propensity of bullies to misuse these central academic concepts only adds to the importance of being well grounded in those concepts yourself. If you have a firm understanding of what academic freedom is and what it is not, you’ll be better prepared to cope with those who try to distort the concept for their own ends.

Another reason people in academe are generally unprepared to deal with bullies is that bullies are relatively rare. They are what is known as “low-incidence, high-severity” problems: one in which the problems don’t arise very often, but when they do they are so serious that they can threaten the integrity of the environment.

For prevention of bullying, creating and maintaining an environment in which respectful professional interactions are expected and reinforced is the most powerful approach. When unprofessional or uncivil conduct occurs in the work-place, it’s important to nip it in the bud. The tone of your response should be nonconfrontational: “Oh, I’m sorry, maybe we forgot to tell you that we don’t act that way here.”

Dealing with the problem head-on and promptly is critical. If someone is verbally abusive to staff or threatens physical violence, the appropriate penalty must be imposed. Any other response only erodes the trust of those who work hard to do the right thing. Similarly, ignoring or tolerating inappropriate conduct in the workplace sends the message that the way to prosper is to misbehave.

How to Handle a Bully

I once got a request from a department administrator (let’s call him Holmes) for advice about how to deal with a visiting faculty member (and let’s call him Cooper) whose contract was to expire in just a few weeks. Cooper had been verbally explosive all year, so people had learned to tread gently around him. But recently his volatility had increased, and a colleague who collaborated with him on research had begun to feel unsafe around him.

I asked Holmes whether Cooper had been informed that his outbursts were causing concern. Well, Holmes responded, “everybody knows” that that kind of behavior is unprofessional. I advised calling Cooper in, nonetheless, and telling him that his conduct was unsettling to his colleagues and students.

He’d be doing both Cooper and the intimidated collaborator a favor by letting Cooper know — unequivocally — that he was expected to control his behavior and to conduct himself professionally in all interactions with colleagues, students, and staff. People who are acting out need to be told clearly that there will be consequences for uncivil behavior. Holmes acknowledged that this made sense.

But what could he say, and how should he say it? I’ve learned to recommend a three-step process: First, try to identify and describe a pattern in what you’re observing. In this case, the escalating explosive verbal conduct is the pattern, and it intimidates others. It sounds like a bullying situation.

Second, sketch out a general strategy. In this case, the strategy is to send the message to the offender that this sort of behavior is not welcome in this department or this university.

Finally, it is tremendously helpful to outline the points you wish to communicate and practice how you’ll say them. Be sure your words convey the message that you expect him to change his behavior — a warning that he is approaching, and has crossed at times, a boundary that must not be crossed. After the conversation, you should send a cordial and factual confirming letter restating the gist of what was said.

Some people’s eyes work better than their ears, and you want to be sure the bully gets your message. Let’s hope no further action will be necessary. But if the bully’s behavior does not revert to the upsetting-but-tolerable category, your next response will be to call the campus police, who will supply a bit of what my colleagues and I have come to call “blue therapy": a talk with a uniformed (and trained) peace officer.

I predict that, should the need arise, the interaction with the police will be both educational and therapeutic for a tantrum habit. But many situations involving academic bullies date back years, if not decades. Problems with long histories are not quickly resolved. In fact, it generally takes more than a year to bring about significant change in a pattern of conduct that stretches back over years. But significant, positive change can be achieved, given the right mindset, some patience, and persistence.

The key to changing a bully’s behavior is to change the environment. Most bullies have never been confronted with the consequences of their actions, or even been told that their conduct is not well regarded in their environment. Thus your task is to change the environment to begin attaching natural consequences to unpleasant behavior, and most of all, to remove any rewards it has yielded. This is the essence of the hard work to come.

It’s not hopeless — you can make a difference. True, taking action will not be without cost. But what will be the costs of inaction?

— C.K. Gunsalus

C.K. Gunsalus is special counsel and adjunct professor in law and medicine at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where she formerly was associate provost. She has served as chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility. This essay is adapted and reprinted [without] by permission of the publisher from her new book, The College Administrator’s Survival Guide (Harvard University Press).

From: insidehighered.com

Are they claiming that you are emotionally unstable?

PsychologistEthics.net is designed to help inform the public about political psychology; that is, psychologists violating established codes of ethics to carry out the political agendas of others, especially employers. Political psychology is often used to facilitate workplace mobbing...

When one imagines using mental health professionals to target undesirable individuals, one almost always thinks of totalitarian governments such as the former USSR, China, and Cuba. There is a long and ugly precedent of using mental health professionals in those societies to target politically undesirable people and have them placed in mental institutions involuntarily.

Human rights groups refer to this practice as "political psychiatry." Victims of political psychiatry are usually people who have filed grievances or complaints against employers or officials, or are union organizers, people who have publicly criticized officials, members of minority religions, and whistle-blowers. Because of reports of the former Soviet Union and China committing political dissidents to mental institutions, the World Psychiatric Association passed the Madrid Declaration in 1996 declaring that "all forms of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment on the basis of the political needs of governments are forbidden." Unfortunately, no such declarations have been made for or by psychologists to condemn political psychology...

In this case, an SIUC faculty member was mobbed by the university administration with the help of some of her departmental colleagues because they disliked her opinions, which were expressed through grievances, guest columns and letters to the editor, speeches, union activism, and by joining in a suit with other faculty members against the board of trustees to protest the firing of a popular chancellor.

As a result, her office was moved out of the department and her mail was stolen. Frequent whispering campaigns were held in the hallways by colleagues who quickly scattered behind slammed doors when she was sighted. She was unjustly blamed for negative tenure votes and missing department materials. The nameplate on her door was vandalized and she learned that she was referred to as "the little twerp" by some.

The university administration then hired a licensed psychologist who, the faculty member was told, would conduct counseling and conflict resolution for her deeply divided department, but who instead wrote a report for the administration indicating that the faculty member was destructive and in need of discipline and professional help.

The administration disseminated the psychologist's report to over 20 people on the campus. In this case, the psychologist made an unsubstantiated assessment of the faculty member based solely on what the faculty member's "enemies" had said about her...

So they never gave you a [good] reference... Well, make sure you hit back hard!

Relaxion Group Plc -v- Rhys Harper

June 2003 The Court of Appeal ruled that an ex-employee should be able to bring a claim of discrimination even after the employment has ended, for post-termination detriment.

Employers could now face discrimination claims from past employees who are, for example, dissatisfied with a reference provided or the lack of a reference - or even the way that an appeal against dismissal or some other post employment investigation has been conducted.

The Lords ruled that where 'the relationship between employer and employee is still continuing, notwithstanding the termination of employment, it should still attract protection'. The issue lies in identifying when the relationship is still continuing.

Whistleblowing Provisions Apply to Post-Employment Detriment

The Court of Appeal has held the "whistle-blowing" provisions in the Employment Rights Act (ERA) which protect workers from detrimental treatment where they have blown the whistle also cover detriments suffered post termination.

The Claimant, Mrs Woodward, was employed by Abbey National's Treasury Services from 1991 until she was made redundant in 1994. In January 2003, Mrs Woodward made a complaint of detrimental treatment. She argued that her ex-employer's refusal to provide an employment reference was due to the fact that she had made a protected disclosure under the "whistle-blowing" provisions of the ERA whilst she was still employed by the Respondent.

The Court of Appeal had previously ruled that ex-employees could not rely on the "whistle-blowing" provisions of the ERA as the legislation only protected employees against detriments suffered whilst in employment.

However, the House of Lords had subsequently ruled that victimisation claims under discrimination legislation could be brought by ex-employees. The Court of Appeal was faced with the task of deciding whether these two decisions could be reconciled and it essentially decided that they could not: the Court considered that complaints of detriment under the "whistle-blowing" provisions of the ERA dealt with the same concept as victimisation complaints under discrimination legislation.

The Court of Appeal overturned its earlier decision and held that the provisions protecting against detriment in the ERA should be interpreted so as to afford protection to employees suffering a detriment after the termination of their employment.

The provisions in the ERA dealing with protection from suffering detriment in employment extend beyond whistleblowing cases and cover matters such as jury service, health and safety and working time. The decision in this case will extend to all cases of detrimental treatment under the ERA and employers will therefore need to ensure that procedures are in place to prevent detrimental treatment after termination.

One of the most likely cases where employers are at risk of subjecting former employees to detrimental treatment will be in relation to the provision of references.

Woodward v Abbey National Plc

The Court of Appeal has held that an Employment Tribunal does have jurisdiction to consider a complaint by a former employee that she suffered a detriment as a consequence of her employer failing to provide her with a reference (albeit eight years after her employment terminated) on the grounds that she blew the whistle whilst employed.

Since the House of Lords decision in Rhys-Harper, it has been clear that former employees can bring claims under the discrimination legislation in relation to events that took place after the termination of their employment in certain circumstances. Now, the Court of Appeal has ruled that former employees can similarly, in certain cases, bring claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 - and which may extend beyond blowing the whistle to a detriment suffered as a result of raising concerns in relation to health and safety, working time etc.

Accordingly, additional care must now be taken in the treatment afforded to former employees where the circumstances are such that the former employee may be able to rely on protection afforded by the Employment Rights Act 1996. Employers should review their policies on giving references (or any other actions post termination) carefully to ensure that it is applied consistently across the board.

Post-termination discrimination

This case concerned an issue commonly faced by HR managers, namely that of giving references for employees post-termination. It has been possible for an employee to make a claim against a former employer in relation to detriment suffered where the discrimination arises out of, and is closely connected to, an employment relationship that has come to an end. The questions raised by this case were how long does that obligation last for and does it apply to both solicited and unsolicited information?

Shoebridge was employed by the Metropolitan Police Service (the Met) until October 2001. During his employment, he had made a successful complaint of sex discrimination. After leaving the Met he worked for a number of other organisations before providing his services to Sky News Television. Some 14 months after he left the Met, his arrangement with Sky ended abruptly, allegedly as a result of the Met suggesting to Sky that Sky should no longer engage him. Shoebridge subsequently commenced proceedings against the Met for victimisation. He claimed that unsolicited statements made by the Met had led to the termination of his arrangement with Sky.

The question was, did the Tribunal have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint? The Met sought to make a distinction between unsolicited comments and those given in response to reference requests. The EAT did not agree that such a distinction should be made and held that unsolicited comments would fall within the Employment Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The second point was whether or not the elapsed time since dismissal affected the situation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal again found in favour of Shoebridge on this point, determining that an employee has the expectation of non-discriminatory conduct by a former employer whenever the former employer is discussing the employee. It was decided that the Employment Tribunal did have jurisdiction to hear the case.

In considering the issues, the Employment Appeal Tribunal suggested that, when dealing with this question, the Tribunals should consider whether there is a substantial connection with the employment relationship or a sufficiently close connection with the employee. The important point to remember is that employers must always consider the comments given in respect of employees, regardless of when the employment terminated.

So they never gave you a [good] reference... Well, make sure you hit back hard!

The Bullying Boss [In Academia]

The Bullying Boss [In Academia]

By Anne L Jefferson Ph.D., University of Ottawa

Leadership has mistakenly been assumed to be a quality processed by all individuals who have positions of authority. Implied is the ability to “draw others into the active pursuit of the strategic goals” (Cunningham and Cordeiro, 2006, p. 155) of the organization. This ability energizes faculty to take the organization to greater heights of achievement. But, as Elash (2004) clearly pointed out, “the corporate scandals at the turn of the millennium clearly demonstrate that leaders can be self-serving and greedy ... Even if they are well intentioned, leaders can abuse their power. ... Some are just bullies who mistreat others simply because they are in a position to do so” (p.2).

The shifting environment in which the academy must respond as individual academics and as an organizational unit requires a complex set of skills. Utmost, the leader requires highly refined interpersonal skills. To help ensure that qualified candidates are placed into leadership roles, many school level organizations are putting into place administrative licensure requirements. They exist to ensure, at the minimum, knowledge and skills essential for competent practice. The key is “competent practice”.

Consequently, some administrative courses are normally required to establish a base of knowledge and skills associated with the demands of leadership. In doing so, administrators are held to a standard similar to their faculty. The hope is such safe guards will minimize the likelihood that a bully boss will be evident and certainly not tolerated. Unfortunately, academia is not known for putting in place similar safe guards. Their unions are hesitant, reluctant, and fear the backlash of the administration. As one union lawyer stated, prime concern is to maintain positive working relationships with the administration.

If this preparatory requirement is left uncheck, fertile ground for the bully boss to enter has been nurtured. With the entrance of the bully boss one has an unprepared administrator with a dangerous power and authority working platform. It is the platform that inspires the bully boss. All actions are justified in giving substance to the purpose and direction of the organization. Their claim is I am just tough and demanding and look how much more profitable the organization is.

The bottom line becomes the justification. But, the bottom line has a number of interpretations. In the world of academia, the bottom line is the advancement of knowledge through highly skilled professionals. This is where the insecurities and incompetence of the boss are open for public display. It is an arena the bully boss will do anything to hide from. So, to distract the focus one needs targets. And so, the green flag has been waived.

The Green Flag Permits - Examples of bullying that is allowed to flourish with little, if any, check are:

Erosion of protected union rights

The faculty members’ rights are casually violated. When the member objects, the objection is viewed as unreasonable and interfering with the work of the Faculty. Lengthy meetings, involving union representation, finally sort the matter out as per collective agreement. But, in the process the member is presented as a trouble maker as opposed to the administration acting unreasonably. For example, collective agreement clearly states a faculty member’s teaching workload is not to be over all terms unless mutually agreed. Administration arbitrarily violates the agreement and refuses to discuss the situation with the faculty member.

[The] Member is forced to grieve administrative action as only available alternative. Result is numerous meetings with each agreement reached subsequently violated by the Administration. Each violation forces the member to file a grievance. As the grievances increase in number member is increasing viewed as a very difficult faculty member to deal with. The member is portrayed as unwilling to cooperate with the administration.

Extreme usage of the collective agreement

The administration invokes or threatens to invoke disciplinary measures without establishment of the facts. The process imposes emotional and professional stress on the faculty member. Again, the faculty member is presented as a problem that must be dealt with as opposed to the administration acting unreasonably. For example, the administration receives a letter from a student expressing dissatisfaction about the structure of a course taken and successfully completed several months prior. Without first approaching the faculty member about the concerns in the letter and thereby establish a more complete understanding of the situation, the Administration writes a letter to the faculty member informing the member they are being charged under the disciplinary section of the collective agreement.

The full process of the section is active and the professional status of the member is placed in jeopardy without the member having prior knowledge of why. Investigation as per disciplinary section reveals there is no justification to the Administration’s action and matter is withdrawn. But, Administration maintains documentation on member’s file.

Erosion of professional conduct

In private meetings with the faculty member, the administration becomes abusive and attempts to psychologically demean the faculty member. When confronted with exhibited behavior, the administration denies any inappropriateness in conduct. For example, in all public encounters the Administration portrays an individual who is very friendly and engaging. However, in private the Administration adopts behavior that reveals someone on an extreme power trip. Members are dealt with as if they are anything other than a professional and are reminded who is the Administration and they are expected to toe the line. Verbal and physical abuse is not abnormal. Non-tenured faculty members are quickly brought into line. The Administrator remainds them their job security is dependent on a positive Administration recommendation. Tenured faculty members who are more likely to not tolerate such conduct are pursued relentlessly.

Disruption of individual careers

The bully boss cannot afford to be seen as anything other than a winner. Therefore, all targeted faculty members must be moved out and preferably with identifiable public lashes so that all others will toll the bully line. For example, the Administration makes very public the discipline of two professors. The process adopted unnecessarily involves others. The desire result for the bully boss is an assurance other faculty member would think twice prior to taking on the administration.

Disruption of collegiality among individuals

The persistent and unchecked administrative behavior towards the faculty members signals others to find fault in the faculty member as a way of self preservation. If they can keep the victims as victims then there is less likelihood they will become victims. For example, out of frustration and a sense of hopelessness, faculty members decide to take public concerns about the actions of the administration. Administration is upset about the public exposure and makes it known. Furthermore, former administrative individuals and active administrative personnel are used to put in place a strategy to oust the faculty members who dared to go public. The strategy worked in dividing faculty members so the administration now has a clear newly generated list of potential victims.

The green flag is clearly essential to the bully boss. As Ms Horm (cited in MacDonald, 2004) state, “Studies indicate that bullies are actually inept people who are not talented, maybe have a rage against themselves that they express outward toward people they see as being better than they are. It’s from a point of weakness that they express their violence toward others” (p.2). Thus, without the flag there is little room for the bully boss and it is she or him that must prepare to leave the organization as opposed to the victim of the bullying. This preventive step to bullying has been taken by at least two universities in the United Kingdom.

City University London deals with bullying within its harassment and dignity at work policy. Specifically, the policy defines bullying as “a serious form of harassment. It may involve actions, comments, physical contact or behaviour that is found to be objectionable. Personal vindictiveness against an individual(s) is also a factor. Bullying can be defined as persistent actions, criticisms or personal abuse either in public or private, which humiliates, intimidates, undermines or demeans the individual(s) involved. “Bullying is to be distinguished from vigorous academic debate or the actions of a manager making reasonable (but perhaps unpopular) requests of his/her staff including the need to manage performance effectively” (www.city.ac.uk/hr/policies/harass_policy.html).
The University of Cambridge also deals with bullying within its university harassment policy. Specifically, the policy defines bullying as follows: “Bullying is a form of psychological harassment; it is intimidation which serves to undermine the self-esteem, confidence, competence, effectiveness and integrity of the bully’s target. “Bullying behaviour may include continual, undeserved criticism, belittling remarks, imposition of unreasonable deadlines, unreasonable demands for perfection, arbitrary and inconsistent demands, shouting, swearing and offensive language, constant interruption in discussion, and the display of overbearing or intrusive behaviour. Bullying behaviour may also be manifested by electronic means of communication such as email.

“Bullying is behaviour which may take place between those of different status or those of the same status. Bullying when reinforced by power within a relationship is particularly reprehensible. [emphasis added] “Behaviour which makes the recipient feel threatened, humiliated or patronised and which undermines his or her self-confidence or self-esteem is unacceptable, whatever the context. “The defining features of bullying are that the behaviour is unacceptable to the recipient, is unwanted by the recipient, and would be regarded as bullying by reasonable people” (www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/personnel/policy).

The effects of bullying on the individual and the organization have clearly been recognized by these two universities. What is important to acknowledge is in each policy management is not presumed to be innocent of actions. In fact, the University of Cambridge makes the statement that “bullying when reinforced by power within a relationship is particularly reprehensible”.

The North American normal reality of failure to have policy on the issue of bullying protects the bully boss not the victim. This win is not a win for the organization. Academia relies on skilled professionals. A bully boss will serve to motivate the practice of these skills downward; even for the non-targeted victim. For, the non-targeted could easily become the target.

Concluding Comments

“Bullying is a sign of emotional immaturity in a leader” (Elash, 2004). At a time when academia needs to serve the knowledge economy in an innovative manner, the inaction, unwillingness to act, and fear to act against bullying from the boss within the organization is a sad commentary on the academy. The prevalence of bullying within academia is of concern. As noted by Czernis (2005), “respondents to The Times Higher survey had worked at their jobs an average of seven years and reported bullying as lasting typically from two to five years, suggesting academic staff who completed the survey spent a large proportion of their working lives being bullied” (p. A8). This is a tragedy. The human loss in potential and the organizational loss in possibilities are and should be intolerable.

As Bennis (1989) observes, “Leadership can be felt throughout an organization. It gives pace and energy to the work and empowers the work force. Empowerment is the collective effect of leadership. In organizations with effective leaders, empowerment is most evident in four themes: [people feel significant, learning and competence matter, people are part of a community, and work is exciting]” (pp. 22-23). The tolerance of administrative bullying is costly to every aspect of an organization. The cost for the academy and society is exponential. The reason is the pivotal role in the development and advancement of knowledge projected onto the academy. This role is hindered when its implementation is under the guidance of administrative bullying.

References

Bennis, Warren. (1989). Why leaders can’t lead: The unconscious conspiracy continues. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. City University London. (2005).

Harassment and Dignity at Work Policy. (www.city.ac.uk/hr/policies/harass_policy.html).

Cunningham, William G., & Paula A. Cordeiro. (2006). Educational Leadership: A Problem-Based Approach. Toronto: Pearson.

Czernis, Loretta. (2005, November). Facing off against workplace bullies. CAUT Bulletin, pp A3, A8.

Elash, Daniel. (2004). When the Boss is a Bully. (www.refresher.com/!ddebully.html)

MacDonald, Jay. (2004). Beating a bullying boss. (www.bankrate.com/brm/news/advice/bully-boss1.asp)

University of Cambridge (2005). Dealing with Bullying and Harassment: Advice and Instructions for Staff. (www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/personnel/policy).

From: Academic Leadership - The Online Journal, http://www.academicleadership.org/articles/show/111/

Injustice destroys justice...

'...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

Institutionalised Racism in Higher Education - UK

Below is an edited version of a paper we received recently. The complete paper (about ten pages) is too long for this blog, but can be downloaded in its entirety (Microsoft Word file). We strongly recommend that you read it.

This story exposes institutionalised racism in Higher Education, and union inactivity - if not collaboration - with employers (certain universities).

There are many parallels with bullying in Higher Education. Remember the words of Tim Field: "Those that can, do. Those that can't, bully" - or discriminate.

Well, Mr. Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP, and Rt Hon Bill Rammell MP...

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

INSTITUTIONALISED RACISM IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION -
UCU ELECTION 2007

The interesting story of Dr D’Silva published in CAFAS Update No. 52 has prompted us to prepare a follow up story on the Institutionalised Discrimination, extended across the Higher Education Sector...

In Dr D’Silva’s case readers have seen an example of institutionalised discrimination within a single organisation. However, in the present story you will find how Academic Institutions put in place discriminatory regimes, close their ranks and carry out acts of discrimination and victimisation against whistle blowers...

Academic Background:

Recently Mr Deman received overwhelming support for his nomination to the National Executive Membership of the University College Union from across the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland, Scotland, England & Wales). Some of these people were also members of the CEM and CAFAS. Since Mr Deman does not personally know many of those who nominated him we thought we should provide the members some background information about his academic history, experiences of employment problems and commitment to the Trade Union movement.

Mr Deman obtained his BSc, MA & MPhil from India and an MA & DBA from one of the top universities in the World, the University of Pittsburgh, US and he has also has an M. Phil from the UK. Mr Deman has travelled internationally presenting his research in about 50 countries and has worked in India, Poland, US, Australia, Japan, Northern Ireland, New Zealand and in London as an Assistant Professor/Visiting Professor, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Research Fellow, Research Coordinator, and Professor... He has published about 30 research papers and books articles and he has served on the United Nations Expert Group Panel for UNEP/UNCTAD...

Trade Union Background

Mr Deman is an active member of Civil Liberties and Human Rights organizations. Given his background he is keenly interested in the plight of oppressed and ethnic minority people all over the world. He is a committed trade unionist with considerable trade union experience including working closely with the former Defence Minister of India, Mr. George Fernandez during the 2 million Railway Workers’ Strike of 1974. He has also worked with Mr. Prakash Karat, the present General Secretary of the CPIM, when he was President of the ‘All India Students’ Federation’, the Centre for Indian Trade Unions [CITU], Rajasthan University Teachers’ Association, University Senate and the All Indian Federation of University and College Teachers Organisation.

He has been a founder member of a number organisation including civil rights movements in the UK and elsewhere and a committed member of others. He has never hesitated to voice his opinion on issues surrounding the right to a fair hearing, unfair dismissals, racial discrimination and victimization. He was also one of the founders of the Council for Ethnic Minority, which assists victims in the Employment Tribunal [tribunals_racialbias@yahoo.co.uk]...

Experience of ANU/NATHFE

With his commitment to trade unionism he was extremely disappointed in the functioning of Trade Unions in Higher Education and the attitude of the leadership. They appeared to be more interested in the public relations exercise rather than undertaking the real work on “the shop floor.” Many who approached them for assistance received platitudes rather than assistance. Thus an individual member seeking a resolution of an employment problem is often brought into conflict not only with his employer but also with his/her union that is supposed to assist in employment problems.

This is demonstrated by the fact that in the period 1997-2004, there were 16 claims of racial discrimination against the Union of which an Iranian member won 2 claims, 6 were settled (including an Iranian member, the union admitted liability in 2 claims), three withdrawn and three pending. Any member considering that the union is there to help him or her in employment difficulties should feel alarmed at these statistics. The above claims do not include claims against the AUT but I suspect the picture is not different.

Mr Deman’s own experiences with the AUT/NATFHE mirror these experiences...

Despite his success his past employer still haunts him by sending one-sided views of his cases to his past & potential employers to victimise him. Unfortunately, his employers (past and present) chose to rely upon the one-sided information and unsolicited references rather than the court transcripts.

In Mr Deman’s claims in 1999 a Central London Tribunal found as follows:

“Dr Triesman was an impressive witness but he displayed a surprised degree of naiveté and ignorance as to the reality of discrimination on the shop floor. His evidence that everything was satisfactory in race terms within the AUT apart from the applicant’s complaint, displayed a surprised degree of ignorance and complacency: It does not follow from the facts that no-one other than the applicant had raised an official grievance under the rules – unlike the applicant – that all ethnic minority members are happy with the state of affairs within the union.” [1/1/44].

“The Tribunal found Dr Joanna DeGroot to be a patronising, unreliable and evasive witness. When asked by a Member of this Tribunal as to how many members of the York University were black, her glib, evasive and unhelpful reply was, “I don’t put labels on people” [1/1/42]

“Dr Triesman should meet with and pay heed to the views of members like Dr Saha, who was a most impressive witness, who wanted to work with and not against the AUT but who are very unhappy with the services provided by the AUT to ethnic minority members. When asked why he had not raised any internal grievance, his telling reply was, “Then I would have ended up like the Applicant”, i.e., in the Tribunal against the AUT, which is not the situation he would like to be in. [1/1/44]

Similarly, the EAT President Justice Lindsay commented in case against the AUT, Triesman and & others as follows:

"For a body, especially one which could be reasonably expected to be well informed and effective as the LAC, to escape a possible conclusion of racial discrimination on the grounds of its incompetence and corner-cutting is obviously unattractive and, if not carefully watched, the use of such an escape route could all too easily become endemic".

However, this forewarning fell on deaf ears. Although Mr. Triesman got a fast track promotion from the AUT to the Labour Party General Secretary, to Lord Triesman as a Government whip, if one examines his record, he has done very little, if anything, for the union and its members. The union rather than uniting against the employers chose to unit against the victims...

Deman’s Treatment in the HE Sector & Tribunals Results

Mr Deman has had his successes within the tribunal system in the rare cases where he received a fair hearing from a chairmen with an open mind who was not intimidated by the high powered and expensive employer’s legal teams. But one must bear in mind that the Employment Tribunals Service Annual Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2005 show only 3% of race discrimination cases were successful at tribunal...

On 9 June 2005 the Tribunal awarded substantial damages, which after a lot of difficulties the Respondents agreed to pay and Mr. Deman cleared some of his debts to his solicitor from previous actions.

University of Greenwich & Russell Brockett, Director of Personnel

In case of his past employer, the University of Greenwich & others in which the AUT & NATFHE refused to provide support the Ashford Tribunal found as follows:

“Mr Geddes was capable of making racist comments” …In our view, the Applicant was on this occasion genuinely of the opinion that the remark was racist. We consider that we are entitled to infer racial discrimination in that instance.” [para 70]...

Greenwich EO Claim & Sir William McPherson Report

Further, the University of Greenwich had been in breach of its own Equal Opportunity commitments as exemplified in its EO report and in the THES.

“Black and ethnic minority constitute 7% of staff who have returned monitoring information. This figure is considerably lower than the percentage of ethnic minority students (28%). The ethnic diversity of staff is also considerably less than the diversity of the population of the London region (20.2%).”

...Unfortunately, the Unions like NATFHE & AUT did not make any comments in the meeting in spite of their outcry against institutional racism within their organisations and in the HE & FE sector for window dressing. In fact, they proactively represented the management although Mr. Deman was the member of both the unions.

The above statistics definitely refutes the University’s claim on equal opportunity. In fact, in the opinions of many leaders of the ethnic community, the University of Greenwich is one of the worst employers located in the Capital of Europe in the new millennium. In the above background the Greenwich Racial Equality Council has included investigations of Institutional Racism at the University of Greenwich as a priority in their work programme 2000-2001, but abandoned it despite the findings of racial discrimination and victimisation.

University of Nottingham & Professor Gow, P-V-C & Ex-Director Business School

Mr Deman also had success own his own against the University of Nottingham & Professor Gow, Director of Business School [Ex- PVC and Present Vice Chancellor of University of Sheffield & Nottingham]...

Professor Wright & Professor Bruce and Professor Gow

“Whereas Professors Greenway and Berry and Ennew saved the university form a far worse fate than may have befallen it, Professor Bruce and Wright quite literally added insult to injury. To cover up what we believe was conscious victimisation, they portrayed the claimant as not being worth the least consideration. Professor Bruce’s rating of him as RAE 2 and Professor Wrights as “3B at best” was not in our view only as Professor Ennew admitted “a tad on the harsh side”, it was high handed, malicious, oppressive and insulting” [paragraph 9.6]...

Further, the Court of Appeal also reversed the decision of Justice Lindsay President of EAT against the AUT, Mr Triesman and others. Recently the EAT has also reversed the decisions of London Tribunal in Deman v London Business School, Sheffield Tribunal in Deman v University of Sheffield & Professor Owen and Croydon Tribunals in Deman v Dr Coates and restored initial decision that Dr Coates was guilty of racial discrimination.

In view of the findings against the Director of Personnel [University of Greenwich] and Pro-Vice-Chancellor & Director of Business Schools [University of Nottingham] Mr Deman has requested both unions, NATFHE & AUT that the above decisions receive publicity as the findings of the Tribunals are of wider public interest. He also requested them to take up the matters with the CRE to order an investigation into these institutions due to the nature of findings against their top officials. When Mr Mackney was cross-examined at the Tribunal, his telling reply to the tribunal was, “I do not want to send the wrong signals to members”. In fact Mr. Deman did not want to send a wrong signal either but for the right reasons and not for a cover up...

Settlements – Kings College, Imperial College, University of Sheffield, University of Wales...

Mr Deman has won on his own in the Tribunals with some assistance of the Council for Ethnic Minority, two claims of victimisation and one of race discrimination and, with the assistance of his QC, three claims against Greenwich. However, due to the Respondents and the Tribunals’ starvation tactics this case cost him twice the amount he recovered. He has also settled 6 claims with the assistance of CEM & a colleague from QUB against King’s College, Imperial College, Sheffield University and University of Wales Swansea, and a number of claims against the Queens University of Belfast for substantial amounts.

However, the process of litigation is very stressful and the cost of litigation on some matters of principle, which he raised in the superior courts, far exceeded the recovery and the rest of the money he has donated to the charitable organisations. He has taken up cases only to satisfy his conscience and not as a means of profiting from the awards. You may not have read anything about Mr Deman’s successes in the union newsletter or newspaper. On the other hand the union has glorified some less compelling and trivial cases to appear they have been doing something.

Grapevine or Institutionalised Racism

Because of findings in Mr Deman’s cases against the HE sector, to date he has been unable to find an academic position due to the grapevine effect as belatedly acknowledged by Mr Kline. The UCU’s recent campaign for race equality has been for tactical reasons to win the support of ethnic minority members in the UCU elections. The Guardian put it very eloquently as follows: “As the UCU today launches its race equality campaign it is high time to ask what is being done? Far from celebrating the growing diversity of UK university staff and students, the HE sector is almost doing the opposite...

Similarly, Dr D’Silva approached NATFHE for legal aid against his employer, MMU & others, which was refused on the pretext that he had no merit in his claims. This caused Dr D’Silva a great deal of psychiatric damage and as a result of this he was unable to attend the hearing at the Tribunal...

Surprisingly, the NATFHE leadership did not hesitate to hide behind a few “so-called” champions of Ethnic minorities in NATFHE [UCU], like Andrew Pike [Anglo-Indian], Peter Jones [Anglo-Burmese], Michael Scott [Anglo-Indian], Roger Kline [Jewish] who shamelessly came forward to defend these heinous acts and discriminatory practices of the Unions. We wonder how anyone could take them seriously on Equal Opportunities and Race Relations?

...In fact the leadership along with the employers united against the victims and their conduct could be summarised as Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT puts it very eloquently, "We are your masters and you shine our shoes. Any weaker enemy has to be crushed so that the right lessons are taught" [see, Noam Chomsky's article in Guardian Weekly 1991].

Old vine in a New Bottle

Recently you may have read in the THES the controversy surrounding Sally Hunt v Mackney who are blaming each other for their own failures and betrayals of union members. You should not be confused by this staged managed debate and EO public relations exercise, as they are two sides of the same coin. They also have recruited a few members from the ethnic minority to carry on their bandwagon. This is high time to focus on effective leadership and at least elect a few people who could keep these self-seekers in line with the interests of the union members.

Tribunals Justice – A Mirage

Our own experiences and those of others whom we have helped, in the cases of discrimination, victimization and breaches of Human Rights have demonstrated the difficulty that an individual has in trying to get justice under UK law and especially within the tribunal system. Regrettably it has also demonstrated to me the lack of effective support that is given to such individuals by the academic unions and pro employer individuals within the unions.

Basically the tribunal system which was supposed to allow the individual the opportunity to represent him or herself, or have their union represent him or her to resolve employment difficulties in a rather informal setting, and at little or no costs has now turned out to be a battleground where the individual is faced with employers fielding huge legal teams including QCs who often intimidate the poorer qualified chairmen. The employment legislation actually calls for an “equality of arms” between parties but with employers spending literally hundreds of thousands in legal fees to defend the action and quite minor awards given to successful applicants – the “scales of justice” are very heavily tilted against applicants seeking justice and especially applicants representing themselves in the absence of legal aid...

Any academic who considers that he or she can have confidence that in the event of employment related problems they will have the support of the union and its officials is likely to find what Mr Deman and others have found i.e. that their confidence will have been misplaced. As we have stated the stark choices facing the individual academic will be to continue suffer the injustice or embark on a similarly difficult path to that which Mr Deman has trodden for the last number of years.

No individual or his or her family should be faced with such a choice and that is why Mr Deman has chosen to stand for this position. He is standing for this position, not to pursue any vendetta against the current or past leadership of the unions, but to give any individual, no matter what their colour or creed, a strong defender WITHIN the trade union rather than have them face the costs, trials and tribulations of actions WITHOUT the union or even worst AGAINST it.

If Mr Deman got elected you have our personal commitment to work tirelessly within and without the union to make it truly and effectively Pro EMPLOYEE and not Pro EMPLOYER in employment disputes, and to commit the funds and resources necessary to give academics effective protection against any form of discrimination, victimisation or employment related pressure. In short, to do what others and we consider a union should do!

C Kumar, Coordinator, Mrs S Mahadevan & AJ Graham [Acting]
Council for Ethnic Minority Tribunals_racialbias@yahoo.co.uk

Union of Greek Professionals, Portuguese Professional Association, Sri Lankan Professional Organisation, Iranian Scholars Association, NI Professional & Students Organisation, Indian Cultural Society 2000, Ethnic Minority Council Scotland, India-America Society, Employment Tribunal Consumers' Association, NI Human Rights Watch Group for Ethnic Minority, Ethnic Minority Women Association, Overseas Professional Association, etc.

Are You [an academic] B.O.S.S. -- "Boisterous, Omnipotent, Self Indulgent, Sociopath"

Is your academic line manager a Boisterous, Omnipotent, Self- indulgent Sociopath... B.O.S.S.

People who attain positions of power, whether it is C.E.O., Vice President of Sales, C.O.O., Sales Manager, Branch Manager or another position of authority [Dean, Principal, Assistant Principal, Chancellor, Vice Chancellor etc, etc], reach these positions for a variety of reasons. The reasons are not always a result of competency and hard work; these positions are not always earned. Alternative reasons for being promoted to positions of power include:

Nepotism, Politics, Being in the right place at the right time, Personal relationship, Extraordinary suck-up behavior, Being the tallest in the land of midgets.

Failure to recognize the “Peter’s Principle” - Promoted beyond the individual’s ability to handle the new responsibilities.

Success is defined by the quality of leadership at all levels in the organization. Acting like a B.O.S.S. is not a demonstration of leadership...

From: EzineArticles.com, by Rick Johnson

The international symbol for bullies...

The international symbol for bullies should be a CONDOM because it more accurately reflects what they are. A condom allows for inflation (bullies have inflated egos), destroys the next generation (of good workers), protects a bunch of pricks and dick heads and gives a sense of security (to the bully) while they are actually screwed in the head...

Lecturer fears for tenure over terror stand

From: The Australian, by Hedley Thomas, December 04, 2006

Three months after accusing university lecturers of dishonestly skewing the study of terrorism to blame the West for carnage wreaked by suicidal fanatics, a senior Queensland academic believes he is the latest casualty of a campus purge.

Merv Bendle, an expert on militant religion and a senior lecturer at James Cook University, has been at the centre of a debate over how terrorism, its origins and outcomes are taught on campuses since he attacked fellow academics for what he saw as their anti-West bias.

In his writings, including several published in The Australian, Dr Bendle describes a crisis in history education and criticises academic elites for distorting teaching on fanaticism and avoiding "any facts that might disturb (their) comfort zone".

He now suspects his outspoken views will lead to the loss of his position at the university he has worked for since the early 1990s.

A proposal, part of a restructure by Colin Ryan as head of the new School of Arts and Social Sciences, would lead to the scrapping of six of the seven subjects Dr Bendle teaches at the Townsville university. "Why strip me of my teaching load? I'm not toeing the right political line. I'm not anti-American and I'm not anti-West," he said.

"The main reason for the antipathy against me is my stand on the teaching of history and my anti-terrorist stand.

"People should look at terrorists in the same way they look at pedophiles. How many lecturers do you see defending pedophiles? They don't. But they defend terrorism. I have an intense antipathy to the romanticisation of terrorism. I don't see anything romantic about blowing people to bits because of an ideology that a suicide bomber has become fanatical about."

Dr Bendle's concerns over his tenure were dismissed yesterday by the faculty's pro-vice chancellor, Janet Greeley, who said more than 150 subjects were being reviewed for possible deletion to reduce workload.

"We have undergone a restructure and reduced some staff, so we have to remove some of the teaching burden for lecturers," said Professor Greeley, who is married to Dr Ryan.

"Unfortunately, it happened that a number of the subjects were Dr Bendle's subjects, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what he has published. Dr Bendle will be given every opportunity to teach and be part of research initiatives that the new school will put forward.

"He offers so many subjects across quite a range and that's probably why he might have been hit more than others.

"I may or may not disagree with all of his positions but that has no influence on the subjects that he teaches."

Professor Greeley, who said her husband managed the school at arm's length from her role as faculty head, said she hoped to persuade Dr Bendle that the proposal to take away about 85per cent of his teaching load was not a conspiracy.

But Dr Bendle said he was singled out for adopting a politically incorrect position at odds with the mainstream.

He said he had been previously targeted by two colleagues in an "act of bastardry", leading to an investigation, which found insufficient evidence to support complaints that Dr Bendle or others in the sociology discipline at JCU had been bullying and intimidatory. "Townsville is a Labor Party city and the side of the university that I'm dealing with is radical Labor, far left. But I'm not going to go quietly," he said. "I'll scratch and fight the whole way. All I want to do is get back to teaching what I'm well qualified and good at teaching."

In a paper titled Don't Mention The Terror, Dr Bendle says academic contributions frequently have a political agenda. Academic forums are used to denounce the war on terror, the US, Israel, Australia and their leaders, while insisting that Islam is a religion of peace and is being unfairly targeted, he says.

In response, academics including Macquarie University's Goldie Osuri and Bobby Banerjee of the University of South Australia said in a published article: "Australian academe may be better served by Merv Bendle's silence on terrorism."

However, the University of Queensland's Carl Ungerer and David Martin Jones, who lecture in the School of Political Science and International Studies, said the "polysyllabic howl of outrage" from the academic lobby was predictable.

They said Australian Research Council funding of social sciences was skewed "to maintain the fashionable line that, despite empirical evidence to the contrary in the form of attacks on Western civilian targets, it is all our fault".

"In this Alice in Wonderland world of ... journals read only by participants in this mutually reinforcing discourse, the focus of study is not Islamist ideology and its propensity to violence, but our own long-repressed responsibility for the cause of Islamist rage," they said.

Professor Greeley denied the university had a position on the controversy that arose from Dr Bendle's published stand three months ago. "I was a bit concerned for Merv because he was harshly criticised in the national media by his colleagues," she said. "We all like to see our staff engage in public debate, but one does not like to see them criticised too harshly."