Recognizing Retaliation: The Risks and Costs of Whistleblowing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Features of a Model Policy on Bullying and Harassment:

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

Other important considerations:

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

Confidential advisers

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

Investigators

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

The role of the investigators is to:

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

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

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

Monitoring and Evaluation

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

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

Bullying vs Firm Management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting Investigations

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

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

• Providing compulsory training for investigators and panel members;

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Concluding the proceedings within a reasonable timescale;

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

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

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

Ministers vilify researchers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raw Thought: Causes of Conformance

Institutions require people to do their bidding. A tobacco company must find people willing to get kids addicted to cigarettes, a school must find teachers willing to repeat the same things that they were taught, a government must find public servants willing to enforce the law.

Part of this is simply necessity. To survive, people need money; to get money, people need a job; to get a job, people need to find an existing institution. But the people in these positions don't usually see themselves as mercenaries, doing the smallest amount to avoid getting fired while retaining their own value system. Instead, they adopt the value system of the institution, pushing it even when it's not necessary for their own survival. What explains this pattern of conformance?

The most common explanation is an active process of beating people in: politicians get paid campaign contributions (legalized bribes) to meet the needs of the wealthy, employees get bonuses and penalties for meeting the needs of their employers, kids get threatened with time-outs and bad grades if they don't follow the demands of their teachers. In each case, the people are forced through a series of carrots and sticks to learn the values of the people in charge.

This is a fairly blatant form of conformance, but I suspect it's by far the least effective. Studies on punishment and rewards show that dealing them out lessens the victim's identification with the enforcer. Hitting me every time I don't do my job right may teach me how to do my job, but it's not going to make me particularly excited about it.

Indeed, punishments and rewards interfere with a much more significant effect: cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance studies have found that simply by getting you to do something, you can be persuaded to agree with it. In a classic study, students asked to write an essay in favor of a certain position were found to agree more with the position than students who could write for either position. Similarly, people who pay more to eat a certain food claim to like it more than people who pay less.

The basic theory is that people work to lessen the disagreement between their beliefs and their actions and in most cases it's simply easier to change your beliefs. Quitting your job for the government is tough and painful; and who knows if you'll soon find another? So it's much easier to simply persuade yourself that you agree with the government, that you're doing the right and noble thing, that your work to earn a paycheck is really a service to mankind.

Of course, it also helps that everyone you're surrounded by feels the same way. Culture is another important influence on our beliefs. Another raft of social psychology studies find that people are willing to deny even obvious truths to fit in with a group. In the famous Asch studies on conformance, a group of confederates were seated around a table, with the subject of the experiment on the end. Everyone at the table was given a sheet with three lines, one obviously longer than the other, and then was asked to name the two lines of identical length. All of the confederates gave an obviously wrong answer and by the time the question got to the guy at the end, he ended up conforming and giving the wrong answer as well.

Similarly, spend your days in government offices where people simply take it for granted that they're doing the right thing, and you're likely to pick up that tacit assumption yourself. Such ideas are not only frequently stated, they're often the very foundation of the discussion. And foundational ideas are particularly hard to question, particularly because they're so taken for granted.

But perhaps the most important effect for conformance is simply selection. Imagine that nobody was corruptible, that all the carrots and sticks in the world couldn't get someone to do something they thought morally wrong, that they stood fast in the face of cognitive dissonance, and that their moral fiber was so strong that they were able to resist a less conscientious culture. Even then, it wouldn't make much difference. As long as there was enough variety in people and their moral values, all an organization would need to do is simply fire (or fail to promote) everyone who didn't play their game.

Everyone knows you climb the corporate ladder by being a "team player". Those who make a fuss or don't quite live up to expectations simply get passed over for a promotion. The result is simply that -- without any explicit pressure at all -- the people in positions of power happen to be the ones who identify with the organization's aims.

It's easy to look at the rather more flashy pieces of punishing people for failing to follow orders or living in a culture of conformity. But for those who want obedient employees, sometimes the most effective technique is simply failing to say yes.

From: Aaron Swartz's blog
-----------------------------
Do you hear this acadmic sheep? Yes, I am talking about you lot, the silent sheep out there... You are silenced by fear of reprisals.

As Professor Erik Ringmar wrote: '...academics rarely practice what they preach. Taken as a whole, my colleagues showed their repressive tendencies and their cowardice. My downfall was watched by hundreds of LSE colleagues who asked themselves only what the implications would be for themselves and their careers.'

Now put your heads down and go back to licking ass - you stupid sheep... Baa... baa... Your blind conformity makes it possible for academic managers to get away with injustice... I hope the grass you eat tastes as good as the ass you lick! And remember what happened to the Vichy Collaborators, for this is all you are...

The Global Corporatisation of Universities: Causes and Consequences

The closing days of the twentieth century have seen two extraordinary developments: an information technology revolution and the end of ideological confrontation between major powers. These developments have had a profound effect on the social, political, economic and cultural organisation of humankind, often generically called globalisation, and in the field of higher education this has led in many countries to the adoption and implementation of a single paradigm of a university.

This university is expected to operate like a business corporation in a market place producing and purveying technical excellence in knowledge to a large number of students and other clients. But the corporate university does have fundamental problems: first, in that the problems selected for solution through the application of technical excellence are determined by marketing considerations and therefore may not be very deep or great in significance, and second, that the organisational principles employed under this type of regime do not engender the long-term commitment of academic staff, and lastly that the human contact which is a necessary concomitant of excellent teaching and which is by its nature labour-intensive, must be reduced to the barest minimum in a cost-conscious corporatised university...

Corporatisation means that universities are assumed to be very similar to large business organisations and therefore being capable of being run as businesses, as for example when Ford Motors entered a partnership with Ohio State University on the assumption that ‘the mission(s) of the university and the corporation are not that different.’ Corporatised universities are expected to raise a much greater proportion of their own revenue, enter into business enterprises, acquire and hold investment portfolios, encourages partnerships with private business firms, compete with other universities in the production and marketing of courses to students who are now seen as customers, and generally engage with the market for higher education...

Another consequence of the corporatist paradigm is the decline of collegiality, a form of relationship where responsibility is shared, as originally by bishops in the governance of the Roman Catholic Church, and one also considered traditionally appropriate to universities. Corporatisation has undermined collegiality in two ways, firstly by removing the kind of equality that existed between individual academics through the possession of tenure and secondly by creating a sense of competition between universities as they confront each other in the marketplace...

In their study of university corporatisation Slaughter and Leslie found evidence that neglect of basic research was occurring, and secrecy and confidentiality about research results was a common by-product, and in fact secrecy was often made a condition of collaboration with industry. Competition also raises problems of conformity and lack of creativity and the corporate state may itself lose as much as it seeks to gain. One of the most publicly noticeable consequences of corporatisation is that tenure or the right of academics to continuing employment has become controversial: ‘...what job other than academic has flexible hours, summers off, paid sabbaticals, a guaranteed lifetime employment regardless of performance?’

...An untenured engineering instructor at the same University denounced this view in class, and believes that as a result, the school did not renew his contract. These cases show some of the difficulties implicit in the concept of tenure, viz. to provide protection against dismissal for the exercise of freedom of speech. Should this principle override the need to take responsibility for the views expressed? Chomsky takes the view that it does and has argued in support of Faurisson’s right to express a view with which Chomsky does not personally agree. One view is that academics should be seen as citizens rather than employees, ‘...tenured faculty are the citizens, and their citizenship rights include most importantly their freedom to make professional judgements of others without fear of retribution by the administration...

There are also problems of accountability to whom? In the case of university administrators, the problem is particularly acute. Is the administrator accountable to: a governing body, a government, a parliament, the courts or various administrative tribunals? Accountability is also applied selectively: Slaughter and Leslie report that while only one in ten of the university businesses they studied were successful, there did not seem to be any penalty attached to those responsible for the unsuccessful ones.

The style of management in corporatised universities differs from that employed in traditional universities, not only in the emphasis on short-term employment but in the acceptable level of force in achieving organisational aims. The former administrative style of gentlemanly (admittedly sexist) collegiality among tenured and mostly respected citizens (to use Turner’s term) seems to have given way to a more robust even cut-throat style known as managerialism. While deploring the dichotomy between collegiality and managerialism, Coaldrake and Stedman assert the need for a managerialist ‘…contemporary university management is a complex amalgam of approach administration, academic decision making, financial management, strategic planning and marketing, residing in a large organisation with multiple stakeholders and subject to ongoing shifts in priorities and demands.’

The new paradigm of university administration, with its emphasis on flexibility and avoidance of committees, carries with it an increased risk of corruption and malpractice that the earlier paradigms strove so hard to eliminate. It is interesting to note that the University of Sydney, Australia’s oldest and possibly most prestigious, has felt impelled to institute a code of conduct and an anti-corruption strategy in what the Vice-Chancellor described as an attempt to ‘foster an atmosphere of honesty and fairness.’

...One aspect of corporatisation of deep concern to many is the loss from universities of the role of critic of society, a role which is compromised when universities become subordinated to market forces as a result of the reduction or elimination of tenure, casualisation, the market-orientation of research and teaching priorities...

From: William W. Bostock, AntePodium - An Antipodean electronic journal of world affairs published by The School of Political Science and International Relations at Victoria University of Wellington
-----------------------
The above provides some context within which executive academic decisions related to disciplinary issues of academics, as well as management bullying occurs. Academics are not treated as the citizens described by Chomsky, but rather as 'employees'... One's loyalty is not to academic independence and scholarly debate, but rather to the corporation...

UCU needs to be taken to task...

At 9:04 PM, Anonymous said...

UCU needs to be taken to task over its lack of support for members who are bullied at work. I suggest that Roger Kline is inundated with emails asking him to explain what action he intends to take. He could support me for instance. I took out a grievance in Jan 2006 and the 'support' from UCU has been low key...

[Posted at: UCU discovers workplace bullying through NUS..., in this blog]

Send your emails to: Roger Kline, National head of equality and employment rights, UCU (University and College Union)

'Clarity of purpose and breadth of experience'

With a March [2007] date announced for the election of the general secretary of the newly merged University and College Union, Roger Kline sets out his manifesto... Wednesday July 5, 2006 - Guardian Unlimited

Above all else, the University and College Union (UCU) needs an effective general secretary. Members will not judge UCU by speeches, mission statements or its logo. They will judge the new union primarily by what practical difference we make to their pay, terms, conditions of work and the educational environment they work in.

Our members are professionals. They choose education as a career in order to impart and pursue knowledge, encourage a love of learning and improve people's life chances. That is why they wish to influence those aspects of the management culture, governance and priorities of their own institution and the sector that undermine those aspirations.

We have a long way to go. In higher education we have failed to use the recent pay campaign to make up much ground with comparative professions. We face a chaotic market in education that would follow any lifting of the cap on top-up fees...

UCU will be judged by how effectively it challenges these trends and what difference it makes to members' lives. The new general secretary will need clarity of purpose, a breadth of experience and a commitment to serving the members' interests at all times.

It is too soon to write a manifesto - that will be a collective effort over the next few months, but here are some initial thoughts.

...ensure that the standards we demand of our employers in respect of openness, transparency, governance and, especially, accountability are applied to ourselves...

...use the new statutory equality duties - on race, disability and gender - to challenge discrimination decisively wherever it is found in employment or educational provision...

On my office door is a notice I was given many years ago. It says "those who wish to lead must first learn to serve". You might wish to judge my service at www.rogerkline.org.uk, the campaign website and decide whether I would be an effective leader of the biggest union of its kind in the world.
----------------------------------
We did exactly that. We had a look at www.rogerkline.org.uk, and there is not a single word about workplace bullying in Higher Education. It does not feature in Mr. Kline's key issues, campaign pledge, or politics. Nothing at all.

Obviously the clarity of purpose and breadth of experience does not cover workplace bullying in Higher Education. We have no problem judging the new union primarily by what practical difference it makes to the conditions of work and the educational environment academics work in.

This blog has mentioned a number of cases involving our union's (AUT + NATFE = UCU) pathetic record on workplace bullying. In fact, there seems to be a formulaic response of ignoring or dealing poorly with individual cases of workplace bullying.

Any academic (union member or not) who raises a formal complaint about workplace bullying by senior managers and/or colleagues, is likely to loose his/her job through a pattern of horrendous, Orwellian elimination rituals, often hidden from the public. Employers seem to have complete disregard for ACAS regulations and complete immunity.

The stereotypical advice from the union to the members is to exhaust all internal procedures - these are very rarely fair and often reminiscent of Stalinist courts.

It is not a coincidence that the Employment Tribunal archives do not list any successful claim regarding workplace bullying from academics. With no union support, how would an individual academic defend him/herself against the employer who pays for a QC to represent them?

In fact, one can develop the following cynical theory: Because workplace bullying is so widespread in academia, if (AUT + NATFE = UCU) were to defend each case, they would need lots of resources and money, so better to ignore it!

Send your emails to: Roger Kline, National head of equality and employment rights, UCU (University and College Union).

This year's interesting posts and links

• The Seven Principles of Public Life - Higher and Further Education
• Interception and Monitoring of Communications in FE and HE
• Download the 'Academic Pyramid'
• A different case of corruption in academia...
• Lifting the veil - changes to the "without prejudice" doctrine
• Academics For Academic Freedom - AFAF
• UCU discovers workplace bullying through NUS...
• Your [academic] staff appraisal...
• Factors impairing ability to deal with bullying
• The cost to the employer
• Coping, surviving, fighting back
• The serial bully
• The role of HR and Management
• Dismissal as an academic boomerang
• Workplace bullying and the insignificance of (academic) trade unions
• Expired disciplinary actions...
• Staff are silenced by fear of reprisals
• Obituary: Tim Field
• Checklist of mobbing indicators [in Academia]
• Authorship, ghost-science, access to data and control of the pharmaceutical scientific literature: Who stands behind the word?
• The crisis of conscience... Academic Survival
• Academic unions have their head in the sand...
• Some recent visitors to this blog...
• Too timid to make a stand for [academic] freedom
• What do academic colleagues ever do about workplace bullying?
• Backfire basics - The keys to backfire
• The Mobs of Academe - Excerpts from an online discussion
• Academic Freedom of Expression
• Dealing with bullies [in Academia]
• Are the claiming that you are emotionally unstable?
• How do your Governors compare?
• So they never gave you a [good] reference... Well, make sure you hit back hard!
• The Bullying Boss [in Academia]
• Institutionalised Racism in Higher Education - UK
• Financial impact on [educational] organisations
• Ever wondered how incompetent [academic] managers got so far?
• The international symbol for bullies...

Informative and interesting links:

• Unpacking research on bullying in Higher Education, Petra Boynton
• The Richardson dismissal as an academic boomerang, Brian Martin
• Workplace bullying - interim findings of a study in further and higher education in Wales, Duncan Lewis
• Workplace Mobbing in Academe, Kenneth Westhues
• Bullying at work: a review of the literature, Johanna Beswick, Joanne Gore, David Palferman
• Mediocrity and the 'no change' principle, a recipe for mobbing, Jocelynne Scutt
• First Employment Appeal Tribunal Decisions on Statutory Grievance Procedure, Pinsent Masons
• Bullying at work / a general note on the Law, emplaw.co.uk

Interception and Monitoring of Communications in FE and HE

From: JISC Legal Information Service, 4 April 2006, by Betty Willder

'...Interception and monitoring legislation is a potentially contentious area for colleges and universities. It is important to strike a balance between the need on occasions to intercept or monitor communications (e.g. by the police for the prevention or detection of crime, or by the college or university itself for operational purposes) and the privacy and freedom of expression rights of the individual whose communications may be intercepted.

New laws were therefore introduced to take account of advances in technology and to attempt to address the interests of both camps.

...It is important to emphasise at the outset that any interception should be regarded as exceptional by nature and must always be done on a clear legal base. Any action taken should always be directed to a statutory provision and must be proportionate to that purpose.

...The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 ('the RIPA') rovides that to intentionally and without lawful authority intercept a communication on a private system (e.g. the JANET connection) in the course of its transmission, unless it is done or authorised by someone with the right of control e.g. the Principal or his IT manager acting on his authority, is a criminal offence.

It should also be noted that whilst it may not be a criminal offence for someone with the right of control or authorised, to intercept on a private system, there may be grounds for a civil action for damages if there is no lawful authority to intercept...

Lawful Authority to Intercept

• Lawful authority is required to intercept.
• If there is no lawful authority then consent of the sender and receiver of the communication is needed.
• The RIPA allows some limited interception by the controller of the system without the consent of the sender or the recipient.
• The RIPA sets out the conditions under which third parties such as the police may intercept.
• The Lawful Business Regulations are the main source of lawful authority for the controller of the system to intercept and monitor. They permit the monitoring or keeping a record of communications to for purposes such as standards, national security, prevention and detection of crime, investigating unauthorized use, and ensuring effective system operation.
• The interception must also be relevant to the business of the system controller.
• Every effort must have been made to tell users that interception may take place.
• A communication which has been intercepted and contains personal data is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998.

Possible examples of permitted interceptions

• To check the content of e-mail to ensure that the institutions standards and quality control is not being breached or that third party standards are being followed e.g. the JANET Acceptable Use Policy.

• To check that the system is being used for legitimate purposes only.

• Under a valid warrant obtained by a specified authority e.g. the police or customs and excise etc.

• Some measure of interception is likely to be essential to for example, check or prevent a virus spreading through the system, or to eliminate spam.

• Routine interception for operational purposes such as backing up or forwarding to the correct address.

• Monitoring (but not recording) may also be permissible to ascertain whether a communication is business or personal. An institution may need to check e-mails or voice mail for example in the prolonged absence of staff in accordance with an agreed institutional procedure.

• Where a college operates a confidential helpline service, (for example a collaboration between the institution and the students union), monitoring (but not recording) of calls to support or protect the staff.

None of these examples should be taken as providing unlimited interception powers to colleges and universities and heed should always be paid to the purpose of the interception and the legal basis on which it is done. Staff and students should be clear as to the level of monitoring which may take place.

Essentials for colleges and universities

Colleges and Universities as a minimum should have the following in place. An email and internet policy which:

• Lets the user know what level of interception is likely to take place
• states the do's and don'ts for the user including whether personal use is permitted
• states the level of privacy the user can expect including whether 'cookies ' or other information gathering devices are in use
• lets the user know the penalties for breach of the policy
• is linked with employment contracts, grievance and disciplinary procedures, and acceptable use policies
• has been cross checked with student and staff handbooks, departmental guidelines etc to ensure consistency
• forms part of induction training
• is visible to all e.g. consider notices at log in, on walls in computer suites, and regular on screen reminder notices to ensure ongoing visibility of the policy
• is reviewed on a regular basis...
  

Having these policies and procedures in place will aid in compliance with the law but cannot guarantee complete protection in what is recognised as a difficult area of the law which in many respects has still to be interpreted by the courts.'
------------------------------

The above does not allow for much flexibility and since electronic communications are relatively new, as the author states it 'is a difficult area of law which in many respects has still to be interpreted by courts'.

Most universities are likely to have in place an Acceptable Use Policy, along the lines of:

The University seeks to promote and facilitate the proper and extensive use of Information Technology in the interests of learning and research. Whilst the tradition of academic freedom will be fully respected, this also requires responsible and legal use of the technologies and facilities made available to students and staff of the University... The University fully reserves the right to monitor e-mail, telephone and any other electronically-mediated communications...

And this is where the grey area appears, i.e. academic freedom will be fully respected BUT the university reserves the right to monitor... and if needed - or if convinient - apply disciplinary penalties. The end result is some daring individuals testing the system, or self-censorship.

A report released by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) reveals that burdensome restrictions on speech are commonplace at America’s colleges and universities. The report, entitled Spotlight on Speech Codes 2006: The State of Free Speech on Our Nation’s Campuses, surveyed more than 330 schools and found that an overwhelming majority of them explicitly prohibit speech that, outside the borders of campus, is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

And here is a daring academic that challenged the system... The true story of the world precedent legal ruling on email privacy.