The experience of injustice...

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

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

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

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

From: Dealing with injustice, by Marie Murray

Allegations concerning higher education institutions: HEFCE policy and procedure

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

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

Dear Vice-Chancellor or Principal

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Howard Newby, Chief Executive

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

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

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

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

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

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

c. Satisfy him or herself that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can easily think of a few more...

Equal opportunities and diversity for staff in higher education

Statistics for equal opportunities in higher education, May 2005

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

Grievance, discipline and working conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Challenges for HEIs in implementing equal opportunities

Paragraph 142:

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

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

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

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

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

Time to kick racism out of university

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

Thursday November 16, 2006 - Education Guardian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1984 by George Orwell, Chapter 7

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

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

1984 by George Orwell, Chapter 7

United Kingdom: When Grumbling Becomes A Grievance

01 June 2006 - Article by James Libson and Joanna Blackburn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some hypothetical questions. What do you do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Committee of University Chairemen, Governance Questionnaire, January 2006

Workplace Power Games

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

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

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

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

What Are Power Games?

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

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

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

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

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

Mobbing

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

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

Impact of Power Games on the Target

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

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

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

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

Impact on the Workplace

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

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

What to Look For

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

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

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

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

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