Join our online forum

We have started an online group/forum on Yahoo, at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bullied_academics/

The purpose of this online forum is to provide practical and emotional support to all targets of workplace bullying in Higher Education, and to share our experiences and advice for the benefit of all.

Membership is open to all but ideally we are inviting academics, teachers, educators, and researchers to join this group. This Yahoo group is new, and as such it may take time to evolve into something more significant and/or dynamic. We believe there is a need for a dedicated forum so that the experiences of academics, teachers, researchers etc, are shared, and hopefully are combined towards productive actions and campaigns. Please join us.

Details on how to join this online group are available at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bullied_academics/

Rotten to the core: How workplace 'bad apples' spoil barrels of good employees

Look around any organization and chances are you'll be able to find at least one person whose negative behavior affects the rest of the group to varying degrees. So much so, say two University of Washington researchers, that these "bad apples" are like a virus to their teams, and can upset or spoil the whole apple cart.

The researchers' paper, appearing in the current issue of Research in Organizational Behavior, examines how, when and why the behaviors of one negative member can have powerful and often detrimental influence on teams and groups.

William Felps, a doctoral student at the UW Business School and the study's lead author, was inspired to investigate how workplace conflict and citizenship can be affected by one's co-workers after his wife experienced the "bad apple" phenomenon.

Felps' wife was unhappy at work and characterized the environment as cold and unfriendly. Then, she said, a funny thing happened. One of her co-workers who was particularly caustic and was always making fun of other people at the office came down with an illness that caused him to be away for several days.

"And when he was gone, my wife said that the atmosphere of the office changed dramatically," Felps said. "People started helping each other, playing classical music on their radios, and going out for drinks after work. But when he returned to the office, things returned to the unpleasant way they were. She hadn't noticed this employee as being a very important person in the office before he came down with this illness but, upon observing the social atmosphere when he was gone, she came to believe that he had a profound and negative impact. He truly was the "bad apple" that spoiled the barrel."

Following his wife's experience, Felps, together with Terence Mitchell, a professor of management and organization in the Business School and UW psychology professor, analyzed about two dozen published studies that focused on how teams and groups of employees interact, and specifically how having bad teammates can destroy a good team.

Felps and Mitchell define negative people as those who don't do their fair share of the work, who are chronically unhappy and emotionally unstable, or who bully or attack others. They found that a single "toxic" or negative team member can be the catalyst for downward spirals in organizations. In a follow-up study, the researchers found the vast majority of the people they surveyed could identify at least one "bad apple" that had produced organizational dysfunction.

They reviewed a variety of working environments in which tasks and assignments were performed by small groups of employees whose jobs were interdependent or required a great deal of interaction with one another. They specifically studied smaller groups because those typically require more interaction among members and generally are less tolerant of negative behaviors. Members of smaller groups also are more likely to respond to or speak out about a group member's negative behavior. The two looked at how groups of roughly five to 15 employees in sectors such as manufacturing, fast food, and university settings were affected by the presence of one negative member.

For example, in one study of about 50 manufacturing teams, they found that teams that had a member who was disagreeable or irresponsible were much more likely to have conflict, have poor communication within the team and refuse to cooperate with one another. Consequently, the teams performed poorly.

"Most organizations do not have very effective ways to handle the problem," said Mitchell. "This is especially true when the problem employee has longevity, experience or power. Companies need to move quickly to deal with such problems because the negativity of just one individual is pervasive and destructive and can spread quickly."

According to Felps, group members will react to a negative member in one of three ways: motivational intervention, rejection or defensiveness. In the first scenario, members will express their concerns and ask the individual to change his behavior and, if unsuccessful, the negative member can be removed or rejected. If either the motivation intervention or rejection is successful, the negative member never becomes a "bad apple" and the "barrel" of employees is spared. These two options, however, require that the teammates have some power: when underpowered, teammates become frustrated, distracted and defensive.

Common defensive mechanisms employees use to cope with a "bad apple" include denial, social withdrawal, anger, anxiety and fear. Trust in the team deteriorates and as the group loses its positive culture, members physically and psychologically disengage themselves from the team. Felps and Mitchell also found that negative behavior outweighs positive behavior -- that is, a "bad apple" can spoil the barrel but one or two good workers can't unspoil it.

"People do not expect negative events and behaviors, so when we see them we pay attention to them, ruminate over them and generally attempt to marshal all our resources to cope with the negativity in some way," Mitchell said. "Good behavior is not put into the spotlight as much as negative behavior is."

The authors caution there's a difference between "bad apples" and employees who think outside the box and challenge the status quo. Since these "positive deviants" rock the boat, they may not always be appreciated. And, as Felps and Mitchell argue, unlike "bad apples," "positive deviants" actually help spark organizational innovation.

So, how can companies avoid experiencing the "bad apple" phenomenon? "Managers at companies, particularly those in which employees often work in teams, should take special care when hiring new employees," Felps said. "This would include checking references and administering personality tests so that those who are really low on agreeableness, emotional stability or conscientiousness are screened out."

But, he added, if one slips through the selection screening, companies should place them in a position in which they work alone as much as possible. Or alternatively, there may be no choice but to let these individuals go.

###

For more information, contact Felps at (206) 543-0559 or (206) 934-7030 or willf@u.washington.edu; or Mitchell at (206) 543-6779 or trm@u.washington.edu

From: http://uwnews.washington.edu
----------------------------------------
Now there is a thought: '...checking references and administering personality tests so that those who are really low on agreeableness, emotional stability or conscientiousness are screened out...'

What happenes when the university responsible for employing a rotten apple did not check references? The victim is blamed, the management takes no responsibility, the rotten apple is promoted.

How many silent witnesses...

A university professor killed herself after she became unable to cope with the pressures of work. An inquest on Thursday last week into the death of Diana Winstanley, of Elizabeth Crescent, found she hanged herself on July 5 2006.

The 45-year-old was taken to East Surrey Hospital after police found her body but died on the way, the hearing was told. West Sussex coroner Roger Stone heard that Miss Winstanley had spoken of her worries about her new role at Kingston University.

The inquest heard how Miss Winstanley was a professor in the School of Human Resource Management, but was struggling with the new role. Reading from the evidence, court clerk Jos Atkin said: "She found it difficult to cope in the role, especially with the technology."

Mr Stone said: "Sadly, given the circumstances and the notes left by the deceased, I have no doubt that she took her own life. I pass on my condolences to the family."

Speaking after the verdict, Professor Christine Edwards, Miss Winstanley's colleague at Kingston University and friend of more than 25 years, paid tribute to the distinguished academic. She said: "It was such a tragedy. Diana was both an excellent academic and a warm and outgoing person who cared very much about other people. "She accomplished so much in the 18 months to two years she was here and I have been trying to pick up the pieces."

I wonder how many silent witnesses there were in that university?

Aphra Behn
--------------------------------------------
Suicide don under 'huge stress' in job - 15 September 2006

Universities urged to review plans to outsource support services as inquest hears of work pressures leading up to academic's death. Tony Tysome reports. Universities were urged to bolster staff support services this week after an inquest was told that an academic committed suicide after becoming unable to cope with the pressures of her job.

Kingston University is to conduct a review of its occupational health service for staff after an inquest heard how Diana Winstanley, a professor in the university's School of Human Resource management, hanged herself in her home in July shortly after complaining to her ex-husband about heavy workloads.

The university had received no indication that Professor Winstanley, who was an expert in work-related stress, was suffering as a result of her workload. The tragic news comes as many universities are considering outsourcing confidential staff counselling services, which are seen as a vital lifeline for a growing number of academics suffering acute levels of stress.

David Berger, who chairs the Association for University and College Counselling and is head of counselling at Hull University where the service for staff is about to be outsourced, warned that outsourcing could in effect leave some staff with no support or outlet for their anxieties.

He said: "Although some staff may quite like it, others will find it virtually impossible to find the time to go to offices outside the university within normal working hours." Mr Berger said there was anecdotal evidence that both work-related stress and mental ill-health were on the rise among academic staff. The AUCC is taking steps to plot the trend.

Sally Hunt, joint general secretary of the University and College Union, commented: "Our stress survey indicated borderline levels of psychological distress among staff. Employers must take action to reduce workloads and tackle the causes of occupational stress in the sector."

David Miles, Kingston's pro vice-chancellor for external affairs, told The Times Higher that the institution was preparing to review its staff support systems in the light of the tragedy. Professor Miles said that higher education was "an area where people are expected to deliver high standards under pressured circumstances, and this is becoming increasingly so".

"There is a sense of profound shock here over Di's death. In the preceding weeks, to most people who met her she seemed to be her usual positive self," he said. "There was no indication she was suffering a level of stress that might have contributed to her death."

Professor Miles said that the university offered confidential counselling to its staff through its occupational health service and that it had recently revised its stress management policy.

Evidence submitted to the recent inquest, held at West Sussex Coroner's Court, suggested that Professor Winstanley was struggling in her job, which involved some overseas travel and grappling with challenges involving computer technology. Professor Winstanley's former husband, Nicholas Jarrett, told the inquest that work had been the main cause of his ex-wife's anxiety shortly before her death.

Speaking to The Times Higher later, he said: "I have no doubt at all from the things that she said to me that she was under huge stress at work, and that she was finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the demands that were placed on her. "I believe from what she said that she had inadequate administrative and technical support."

Christine Edwards, a colleague at Kingston and a long-standing friend of Professor Winstanley, said: "No one would have been more aware of the support available at the university than Diana. "As far as we are aware, she had not set in motion any of the procedures within the university's human resources policies or accessed any of the support services open to her."

Times Higher Education Supplement
-------------------------------------
So since she had not accessed any of the support services available to her, and since the university offers confidential counselling to its staff, well... Kingston University did all it could really. Really? It should have never got to that point in the first place. Support and counselling are often there so universities can wash their dirty hands from any claims of negligence. Proximity to counselling does not entail in itself a possible happy resolution.

In the Managerial Age, in a world of “Admin"...

I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of “Admin.” The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid “dens of crime” that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.

C.S. Lewis

Open letter to Peter Jones, Roger Kline and Sally Hunt

As of 15/2/07, i.e. eight (8) days now - no reply from any of the candidates to the letter below. We are patient. We will wait, but not forever...
-----------------------------------
Dear Peter, dear Roger and dear Sally,

We would like to bring to your attention the tragic issue of entrenched workplace bullying in higher education, and we would like to have your comments, suggestions and proposed strategies to deal with this. We are making some suggestions and comments below but ultimately we want to hear your opinions on the matter.

Right now most - if not all - HEIs have in place and are required to have in place anti-bullying policies. These exist on paper, but - as evidenced in numerous cases (Sheffield Hallam University, Leeds Metropolitan, Birmingham's School of Health Sciences), plus our own UCU survey, the problems persist. Quote from recent UCU survey:

'...An astonishing 82% said their institution had a management culture which 'actively contributed to stress' (87% in colleges, 80% in universities). 27% thought their management 'acknowledged the causes of stress' but only 15% thought their management 'sought to address the causes...'

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

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

In our opinion, it is far more productive for our union to intervene before disciplinary decisions are imposed on academics and other staff, before bullied staff loose their jobs under tragic circumstances. It is far more productive for a truly independent body, external body to assess if the university (employer) has indeed followed the right procedures before reaching a decision. This needs to happen before a decision is imposed and not after. 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.

Usually, any mediation offered by the employer can be used / is used as another forum for power games where the target (victim) experiences the ultimate bullying and usually leaves with an exit package, a confidentiality clause and wrecked health.

The 2005 Survey of HR Professionals: Which of the following factors impair your organisation's ability to deal effectively with bullying?

Unwillingness to acknowledge a problem by management - 74.4%
Prevailing management style - 70.4%
Lack of training in how to deal with bullying - 45.4%
Lack of cooperation from management - 44.4%
Inadequate procedures - 30.2%

In random order, some of the challenges we face, are:

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

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

• Colleagues who are afraid to speak up for fear that they may suffer various forms of penalties. So the victim is often left without wtinesses. Which colleague will openly support the victim of bullying and become a witness against senior managers?

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

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

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

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

TUC, Andrea Adams Trust, and other organisations are working/have worked on a number of projects – policing remains the issue, the gap, the weakness. We feel that our union could be more proactive on this issue and at least advocate for this. This is perhaps one of the central challenges. Does 'independence' mean lack of accountability and transparency on issues of workplace bullying?

The reply from HEFCE is/was that universities are accountable to their own governing bodies. Well, one wonders how cozy these relationships may become after some time. There is a voluntary code of practice for governors, but how many of us know about it or have read it? How many governors have been challenged successfully?

So, who has responsibility for this mess? So far, we have failed to pinpoint a single agent for change. That would be too easy. A collective and coordinated effort of multiple players is needed. We have a long way to go. We would like to know if our union will play a leading role in this or will remain a passive observer offering well-written booklets and support after the events.

It would be good to hear/read from all of you your thoughts and your suggestions on how to tackle workplace bullying in academia.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Kropotkin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/

PS: We have been suspended on full pay for over one year now. Our employer is hoping that we will not exhaust all internal procedures and as our health deteriorates we may decide to resign. In the meanwhile our employer has intimidated our witnesses, has refused to hand over important documents for our defense, has set up a 'micky mouse' court that has found us guilty in a grievance hearing that can be compared to stalinist courts, and has recently made us an offer for - yes do not laugh - £20000 with a confidentiality clause attached to it.

We are fully aware that our case is not unique. Workplace bullying in academia has been researched. For example, Professor of Sociology, Kenneth Westhues has come up with the following formula:

1. By standard criteria of job performance, the target is at least average, probably above average.

2. Rumours and gossip circulate about the target's misdeeds: "Did you hear what she did last week?"

3. The target is not invited to meetings or voted onto committees, is excluded or excludes self.

4. Collective focus on a critical incident that "shows what kind of man [woman] he [she] really is."

5. Shared conviction that the target needs some kind of formal punishment, "to be taught a lesson."

6. Unusual timing of the decision to punish, e. g., apart from the annual performance review.

7. Emotion-laden, defamatory rhetoric about the target in oral and written communications.

8. Formal expressions of collective negative sentiment toward the target, e. g. a vote of censure, signatures on a petition, meeting to discuss what to do about the target.

9. High value on secrecy, confidentiality, and collegial solidarity among the mobbers.

10. Loss of diversity of argument, so that it becomes dangerous to "speak up for"or defend the target.

11. The adding up of the target's real or imagined venial sins to make a mortal sin that cries for action.

12. The target is seen as personally abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities; stigmatizing, exclusionary labels are applied.

13. Disregard of established procedures, as mobbers take matters into their own hands.

14. Resistance to independent, outside review of sanctions imposed on the target.

15. Outraged response to any appeals for outside help the target may make.

16. Mobbers' fear of violence from target, target's fear of violence from mobbers, or both.

Sally Hunt or Roger Kline - Tweedle Dum & Tweedle Dee [and yes, there is a third candidate - Peter Jones]

It is almost certain that Sally Hunt will win the election for General Secretary of the University and College Union (UCU). She will have done so without mentioning at all the 'B' word (Bullying).

The vote of course is not compulsory and chances are that since none of the two candidates (Sally Hunt, Roger Kline) have 'excited' us with their promises, the turn out (return of ballots from the membership) is likely to be low. An early indication of this is the following:

'...it is a shame only 12 of the 600 UCU members at Westminster have turned out to hear them. But professional troupers perform however small the house. And Kline and Hunt are used to it: attendance at hustings everywhere has been worryingly low, though 50 turned up at Sheffield...' The Guardian

As members of the union (UCU), we have a number of options:

1. Vote for Sally Hunt.
2. Vote for Roger Kline.
3. Don't vote at all - as some argue, if we vote we are only encouraging them - or
4. Write on the ballot paper 'WHAT ABOUT WORKPLACE BULLYING IN ACADEMIA' - which of course will make the vote invalid.

Since it is a foregone conclusion that Sally Hunt will win the election, our position is to vote for none of them and to 'spoil' the ballot paper by writing your own statement on the ballot paper against workplace bullying in academia. This may not change the course of history, but it may - it just may - get the scrutineers on both camps to think - we hope - about the issue for twenty seconds. Of course the more spoiled ballots they count, the better.

Ballot papers have to be returned by March 7, and the result is out on March 9. No newspaper, no union official, no representative of Sally or Roger will ever acknowledge such spoiled ballots, but a statement has to be made. In effect, both candidates are fighting a turf war with plenty of uninspiring rhetoric for us the docile voters.

If you are concerned about workplace bullying in academia, then make a statement. Don't abstain. Don't vote for either one of the candidates, it only encourages them. Vote against workplace bullying in academia. Use your ballot to make a principled statement - this is our position.
---------------------------------
We have received a number of posts, comments, emails reminding us that there are in fact three candidates for the position of general secretary of UCU:

• Ms Sally Hunt (UCU joint general secretary)
• Mr Peter Jones (Deeside College)
• Mr Roger Kline (UCU head of equality and employment rights)
  

The reason we have concentrated on Sally and Roger is due to the general acknowledgement that Peter - at best - has a very slim chance of being elected. This does not mean that he should not or could not be supported. The campaign of the ‘other’ Left candidate (Peter Jones), died before it was born after the SWP decided to back Kline.

Onlookers, witnesses, eyewitnesses, spectators, turncoats, reprisals. Why junior staff are afraid to speak out against senior staff.

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it." (Martin Luther King)

In most bullying situations, the target of bullying finds themself isolated and alone. Work colleagues, who may formerly have been friendly and supportive, melt away and the target is left feeling like a pariah and an outcast.

There are many reasons why colleagues at work fail to come to the aid of a fellow worker being bullied. These include:

• the bully has gone round the department and warned everybody off, often using implied threats of reorganisation (redundancy), restructuring (redundancy) or even disciplinary action against anyone who helps the target
• the bully creates a climate of fear where everybody is afraid to speak out or take action
• fear of reprisal
• very few people, when put to the test, have the integrity and moral courage to stand up against bullying, harassment, corruption etc; the target is selected often because they do have this moral courage; most people will pass by on the other side, only targets have the integrity to be a good Samaritan
• in the presence of an aggressor, particularly a devious, manipulative, charming one, many people prefer to act more like sheep than humans
• many bystanders are only mediocre at their jobs and their sense of vulnerability through fear of being targeted is thus greater
• understanding of bullying is low and many people still hold outdated views such as "why don't you stand up for yourself?" [answer - because the moment you assert your right not to be bullied the bully moves into phase two of the bullying process which is elimination - click here for more] and "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen"
• work colleagues often have no understanding or experience of bullying, manipulation, psychological violence, etc
• some bystanders are able to employ the "I didn't know what to do" excuse to abdicate and deny their responsibility; bystanders who use this excuse make no effort to find out
• you'll be surprised to realise how many work colleagues have brown noses which you hadn't noticed before or which you'd put down to sunburn
• some of your workmates will turn out to be turncoats
• denial is everywhere
• in environments where the bullying is entrenched, it's regarded as "normal" behaviour
• work mates think that if they keep their heads down, their mouths shut and pretend nothing is happening then it won't happen to them [wrong - their turn will come eventually]
• work colleagues have their own share of problems and they're not going to risk losing their job for someone else
• your workmates are not people you have chosen to be with and they may not be friends - they just happen to be there
• work is an institution, not a family or community; your co-workers have no legal obligation towards you
• bullying goes on over a long period of time, the target eventually becomes obsessive about the bullying, work colleagues start to experience compassion fatigue and turn off; if the bullying continues, colleagues may become aggressive and actively join in with the mobbing, victimising and scapegoating as the pack mentality takes over
• unlike assault and harassment, bullying is subtle and comprises hundreds, perhaps thousands, of incidents which out of context and in isolation are trivial - thus bystanders can't see the full picture
• bullies exert power and control by a combination of selectively withholding information and spreading disinformation, therefore everyone has a distorted picture - of only what the bully wants them to see
• bullying often goes on behind closed doors so no-one sees it or recognises it
• bullying may be carried out in front of people who are unable to recognise the tactics of bullying, especially the use of guilt and sarcasm
• the bully goes to great lengths to undermine their target and portray them as a poor performer - work colleagues are encouraged to regard the target as a threat to the organisation
• the bully is a smooth, slimy, sycophantic individual who excels at deception using a combination of compulsive lying, Jekyll and Hyde nature, manipulation, mimicry of normal behaviour, self-assuredness and charm
• bullies, especially female bullies, are masters of manipulation, and are fond of manipulating people through their emotions (eg guilt); bullies see any form of vulnerability (eg the need to pay the mortgage) as an opportunity for manipulation and exploitation
• your colleagues at work have vulnerabilities too
• bullies are adept at manipulating peoples' perceptions with intent to engender a negative view of the target in the minds of work colleagues, management and personnel - this is achieved through undermining, including the creation of doubts and suspicions and the sharing of false concerns
• bullies poison the atmosphere and actively poison people's minds against the target
• when close to being outwitted and exposed, the bully feigns victimhood and turns the focus on themselves - another example of manipulating people through their emotion of guilt, eg sympathy, feeling sorry
• most bystanders are hoodwinked by the bully's ruses for abdicating responsibility and evading accountability, eg "that's all in the past, let's focus on the future", "what's in the past is no longer relevant", "you need to make a fresh start", and "forgive and forget, you've got to move on", etc.
• the bully encourages and manipulates bystanders to lie, act dishonourably and dishonestly, withhold information and spread misinformation
• the bully manipulates bystanders to punish the target for alleged infractions, ie the bystanders become instruments of harassment
• the bully is often able to bewitch one especially emotionally needy bystander into being their easily controlled spokesperson / advocate / supporter / denier
• the bully often forms an alliance with a colleague who has the same behaviour profile, thus increasing the levels of threat, fear and dysfunction
• the bully is able to charm and manipulate a number of bystanders to act as supporters, assistants, reinforcers, appeasers, deniers, apologists and minimisers
• in an environment where aggression is dominant, good people become disempowered and disenfranchised
• many people do not have the emotional intelligence or behavioural maturity to understand bullying, let alone deal with it
• when there's conflict in the air, most people want to be on the winning side, or the side they think will survive
• some people gain gratification (a perverse feeling of satisfaction) from seeing others in distress and thus become complicit in the bullying
• a few sad people think that bullying is funny
• some observers regard behavioural responses that are reasonable and civilised as a sign of weakness rather than maturity
• many people lack critical thinking skills and analytical abilities and thus cannot see through the facade or the bully's mask of deceit
• apathy is rampant
• many employers are interested only in creating a workforce of corporate clones and drones so this is what employees are programmed to be
• the bully grooms bystanders, and the target, to believe the target deserves the treatment they are receiving
• when the target of bullying is off sick, the bully labels them as having a "mental health problem" and forbids staff to contact the person
• the bystanders see only the Dr Jekyll side of the bully, but only the target sees the Mr/Ms Hyde side; Dr Jekyll is sweet and charming, Mr/Ms Hyde is evil; Mr/Ms Hyde is the real person, Dr Jekyll is an act
• many workplaces undergo reorganisation every six months (or more) therefore there's never sufficient time for employees to gain an accurate picture of the bully.
  

From: http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/bystand.htm

This one is for the silent collaborators...

They first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Pastor Niemoeller (victim of the Nazis)

University bullying shock [Shock and horror, how can these things happen in universities...]

Dozens of staff at Sheffield Hallam University have reported being bullied at work, according to a private internal survey into workplace stress carried out by their bosses. Almost 100 of those taking part reported being bullied 'always, often or sometimes', while other revealed fears about stress levels and victimisation.

Staff also raised serious concerns about pressure at work, the report finding that 'urgent action' was required in 10 areas of work relating to stress. 'Clear improvement' was needed in 22 other areas, while in no category was the University rated as doing 'very well', according to scales devised by the Government's Health and Safety Executive.

The survey, carried out for the University's internal health and safety service, received 844 responses. A similar report prepared last year found staff rated the quality of the university management as 'very unsatisfactory' in many respects.

Lecturers' union the UCU said the findings on stress and bullying were 'disturbing' but pointed out such problems were common throughout higher education. And spokesman Roger Kline praised Hallam for seeking to understand the issues involved. [Roger Boy why did you not kiss their feet?]

"This report makes disturbing reading - it shows the pressures that university staff are under and the levels of stress," he said. "But this is not unique to Sheffield Hallam. I am quite certain that were surveys to be done in most institutions they would show similar or even worse responses." [So when will we have surveys in all other universities Roger Boy?]

In all 96 staff members said they had been bullied at work. University Vice-Chancellor Diana Green said the University cared about the welfare of its workforce and it was important that the wellbeing of staff was regularly monitored.

"We do this in a variety of ways, one of which is the staff stress survey. The survey allows us to take action to alleviate stress where there are concerns and I, and the Board of Governors, have publicly committed to improving the University's performance in this area." [I will vomit later...]
---------------------------
From: The Star, 9 February 2007

Drowning in bureaucracy - undermine it!

In a recent satirical commentary on British academic life, the sociologist and broadcaster Laurie Taylor recently conjured up a memo from the director of corporate affairs of the (fictional) University of Poppleton on "Staff Xmas Dinners". New guidelines are to be introduced, requiring that all staff who wish to participate in any such dinner first attend a special SDW (staff development workshop) on social interaction; departments must henceforth submit a statement of DAO (dining aims and outcomes); and all those attending dinners must complete a PDQ (a post-dining questionnaire) "that includes learning outcomes and a TQA (turkey quality assessment)". If this sounds familiar - if not a turkey quality assessment then a teaching quality assessment - you must be an academic. Such heavy-handed rules and regulations are the reality at British universities today. Thus we were in for a shock when we left prominent American universities over the last decade or so and took up posts as professors in the UK.

There is a great deal about academic life here that we appreciate and consider worth emulating abroad. But we are baffled by the level of monitoring, reporting, evaluating and bureaucratic hassling to which academics in this country are subjected. Our response is to ask: why doesn't Britain let its academics do what they do best, teach and carry out research, without government and university administrators breathing down their necks?

Many British academics groan under the weight of administrative tasks, and they appear to think that this worsening trend is an American one - and American universities are widely held up as a model. US universities have indeed experienced an increase in paperwork in recent decades. But they can't compare with their UK counterparts in terms of sheer zeal for reporting and monitoring.

The problem is that bureaucrats prefer to introduce monitoring and reporting in order to forestall problems that they expect, rather than dealing with the tiny number of such problems that might actually appear. This is evident in the constant reporting on all sorts of things. Instead of the central administration reacting to problems that come to their attention, they expect departments to spell out their activities in mind-numbingly detailed reports - hardly any of which result in any action.

But there is also, more worryingly, a systemic distrust of academics. If lecturers who have been trained for many years can be trusted to teach their courses, why can they not be trusted to assess students' performance without a host of colleagues looking over their shoulder every step of the way? In the US and most other countries it seems to work just fine without these excessive layers of control. While it should be compulsory for lecturers in their first post to be adequately trained and mentored, it seems laughable, if not demeaning, to double- and triple-check every mark on every essay and exam on every course of every lecturer or professor right up to retirement. By stark contrast, even GPs, themselves familiar with appraisals and audits, normally seek a second opinion only when referring a patient to a specialist; otherwise they treat the patient, often with a serious condition or illness, alone.

In the US, panels appointed to interview new colleagues typically consist of three or four staff members from the hiring department. They are, after all, the experts and can certainly be trusted to make the best appointment. In Britain, such panels usually include a vice-chancellor, a dean, a head of another department and often a senior member of the personnel department. Potentially, then, an appointment could be made by a panel whose majority is not from the field for which a candidate is chosen. The present unwieldy system reinforces the notion of academics as unruly youngsters whose every step must be watched and controlled.

The business world seems to be the model for much of what goes on in academia these days, but when we describe this system to business people they inevitably say that no business could survive with this level of monitoring and waste of resources. Academic staff have less and less time for students and research, as polls have shown. If American universities are indeed as superior as some think, it is not only a matter of better funding. In our experience, American lecturers have considerably more time for their students and for research.

British academics seem to be stressed out like no others, and that is bound to diminish their effectiveness and reduce their levels of research output. While they continue to produce excellent research and are outstanding teachers, despite their administrative overloads, they could do even better - and suffer much less stress in the process - if their talents were directed toward these areas instead of into mounds of useless paperwork. We hear that Britain is seeking to attract foreign academics - but this crushing load of administration is not the way to do it. British universities cannot afford to be complacent if they wish to compete in a global academic marketplace.

A national commission is needed to investigate procedures at UK institutions of higher education with a view to reducing monitoring, reporting, assessment, paperwork - and anything else that really doesn't play a useful role in what universities are, or should be, all about: first-class teaching and world-class research.

Professors Susanne Kord and W Daniel Wilson are department heads at University College London and Royal Holloway, University of London. This article was written with the collaboration of Professor Leonard Olschner, of Queen Mary, University of London, and Robert Weninger of King's College London. All worked previously at American universities.

From: The Guardian, Wednesday December 27, 2006
-----------------------------
Smash bureaucracy... undermine it... treat it as a tick box exercise... don't let it control you. It is a powerful means of keeping us down, of making us slaves to the system.