Hypotheses are true...

Anonymous said:

In the midst of experimenting with the following laws I have found that their hypotheses are true at Wolverhampton.

In particular:

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

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

Farlie's extensions:

1. If the people surrounding you are not incompetent, filter their every communication so that they appear incompetent and that you've rescued them.

2. If you are/have been the servant of one, then it is reasonable to assume that you will be the one in the future.

Further research and experimentations:

Please, add other locations and subjects observed so that if a significant number of cases are detected they can become published in a relevant conference. ;-)

-----------------------------------
There are of course 'The Peter Principle', stated as "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence", and

'The Dilbert Principle', stating that companies tend to systematically promote their least-competent employees to management (generally middle management), in order to limit the amount of damage that they're capable of doing.

The 'Max Rangers Principle' (a new one), states that when called to account, make up anything spontaneously to fit the needs at that moment.

And an extension to the 'Max Rangers Principle': to be a convincing and practised liar, feign victimhood when held accountable, usually by bursting into tears or claiming you're the one being bullied and harassed.

Developing a Dignity at Work/Bullying and Harassment Policy

One of the key methods of starting to tackle the issues could be the introduction of a dignity at work or bullying/harassment policy. When doing so, it is important to be clear about your objectives. A policy fulfils a number of important functions within an organisation, such as ensuring equity and fair treatment and indicating a recognition of the seriousness of the issue being addressed.

You should clarify the scope of the policy, whether it relates to staff, students, visitors, contractors, or any combination of these. Where there are separate policies for each group, they should be comprehensive and consistent. One policy that covers all circumstances avoids the difficulties of deciding which policy and procedure to use when dealing with cases, and will enable your institution to promote one recognised standard of conduct for all, as your policy should include examples of unacceptable behaviour.

The policy should also outline relative responsibilities, including those of bystanders or witnesses, and should provide guidance on the procedures to be followed, and sources of help available, in the event of bullying or harassment. There should be a clear distinction between the informal and formal procedures and the aim should generally be to resolve issues at the informal stage, if at all possible, as this is usually the complainant’s preferred initial course of action and enables resolution with as little long-term damage as possible.

Any policy should be jointly developed with the recognised trade unions. Most institutions will involve the unions at the consultation stage, but if you have been working in partnership throughout the development of the policy, not only will the unions be committed to making it work, but they will be able to offer you helpful insights from their perspective on your own institution and any specific issues that may need to be addressed.

In order to be useful, any policy needs to be comprehensible and easy to read, but it is surprising how often policies are written without any regard to plain English. It is also clear that employees need to be aware of where to find details of the policy and how to access advice and help in using it.

However, any policy is only as good as its implementation. Management commitment is essential to making policy development a reality within the institution. You should make sure that you do not put so much effort into writing the perfect policy that you have no resources left to make it work effectively. Organisations often argue that they do not have sufficient resources to effectively deal with bullying and harassment, but with top level commitment it can be done.

From: Dignity at Work - Good Practice Guide for Higher Education

Bad Apple Bullies website

Workplace bullying highest in Irish Public Sector - Ireland

Tony Killeen, Minister for Labour Affairs today published the results of two national surveys relating to workplace bullying, one of workers, ie, individuals at work including employees and self employed who have experienced workplace bullying, and, the other of employers in both the public and private sectors.

The main points which emerged from the surveys were:

• The survey of those at work finds that, overall, 7.9% reported that they had experienced bullying within the past 6 months. This compares with 7% in the 2001 survey.

• In both surveys women are shown to be more at risk, 10.7% in 2007 as against 5.8% for men. The 2001 figures were 9.5% and 5.3% respectively.

• A substantially higher percentage of employees, both men and women, report experiencing bullying by comparison with those who are self-employed - 8.9% v 2.9%.

• Those with higher levels of educational attainment are more likely to report experiencing bullying in the workplace - 9.5% who have completed third level as against 4.4% of those who have completed the Junior Certificate.

• The incidence rate in the public sector is higher than in the private sector.

• The highest rates of bullying are in Education, Public Administration, Health and Social Work.

• In terms of organisation size the highest rates are in medium sized and large organisations.

• Workers are at greater risk of experiencing bullying at work where there was management or organisational change, over 11% compared to 6.2% of those who had not had management or organisational change.

The public and private sector Employer Survey showed that -

• Bullying is more likely to be perceived as a problem in the public sector than in the private sector.

• It is more likely to be perceived as a problem in larger rather than in smaller organisations.

• Public sector organisations more likely to report that bullying by colleagues and by clients is a problem.

• Public sector organisations are more likely to report having a formal policy on workplace bullying in their organisations than those in the private sector.

• Public sector organisations are also more familiar with the Codes of Practice than those in the private sector.

• Procedures in place to deal with workplace bullying are much more prevalent in public sector organisations than in the private sector.

Killeen said that it was disappointing to see that the incidence figure has remained largely the same despite the increase in the level of awareness of the effects of bullying and its negative impact and the existence of Codes of Practice. He said that the fact that only around half of all organisations report that they have heard of Codes of Practice and are aware of their requirements is a concern. He added that he will shortly be announcing a revised Code of Practice developed by the Health and Safety Authority.

Another concern mentioned by Killeen arose from a point which emerged from the survey on the lack of a formal policy on workplace bullying in organisations more so in the private sector than in the public sector. The Minister said this points to the fact that the risk is not being identified and assessed which in itself is being negligent in a duty to those at risk. “I would advocate that in all workplaces any risks in regard to bullying should be identified and assessed and the policies should be put in place to deal with them” he said.

In regard to the public sector, Killeen said, “I am concerned that the survey of those at work shows that the incidence of bullying, whether by managers, subordinates, colleagues or clients is highest in the public sector. In fact, 39% of public sector employers regard bullying of colleagues to be a problem, which many people will consider a surprisingly high level. I am calling today on managers in the public sector to recognise that they have a problem on their hands and to set about addressing it without delay. They have a legal duty to do so under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.”

From: http://www.finfacts.com

Conducting Investigations - UK

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.

From: Dignity at Work - A Good Practice Guide for Higher Education

Employee claims she was unfairly dismissed for being a witch

A teaching assistant is claiming that she was unfairly dismissed because of the fact that she is a witch. Sommer De La Rosa told an Employment Tribunal that her employers feared that she would “brainwash” students with her pagan beliefs.

She also claims that other teachers shunned her because of her faith. De La Rosa, who practises pagan religion Wicca, claims one teacher told her to stop wearing her pentagram necklace, a traditional pagan symbol.

She was sacked last May after nine months at Dorothy Stringer Secondary School in Brighton. While she is claiming that she was unfairly dismissed the school and Brighton and Hove Council say she was sacked because of poor attendance record and “inappropriate disclosures” to students.

The tribunal continues.

The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 are designed to prevent discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. The Regulations define religion or belief as any “religion, religious belief, or similar philosophical belief.

This, says Martin Brewer and Anna Youngs of Mills & Reeve Solicitors, in Workplace Law Network's Discrimination Law: Special Report, “tells us very little”. They go on to explain that the notes to the Regulations say that a religion or belief does not include any philosophical or political belief unless that belief is “similar” to a religious belief. The guidance also adds that courts and tribunals may consider a number of factors when deciding what is a “religion or belief”. For example, whether there is collective worship, whether there is a clear belief system and whether the individual’s belief is profound enough so that it affects their way of life or their view of the world.

As a note of warning Brewer and Youngs add: “It can be seen that the circumstances which can give rise to claims under the Regulations are many and varied. A wise employer will consult with his staff before implementing any change of terms or, for example, introducing a new policy, in order to ensure that it does not impinge upon their religious freedoms. That same wise employer will also be prepared to be flexible so as to avoid litigation.”

From: http://www.workplacelaw.net

Ten Signs of an Incompetent [Academic] Leader

Poor leadership surrounds us, it's a fact of life and they seemingly find a way to keep their jobs. They are more focused on their personal needs and not of the professional needs of those below them. They have a hard time developing their employees because they lack the proper management techniques to do so. A leader is someone who you would follow to a place you would not go alone. Leadership is about action not status.

However, the question is, how do we know when we are dealing with these flaw ridden individuals. A lot of the time, a poor manager can make the perception that he/she is busy and organized. I have developed a small guideline that can help pinpoint these leaders.

Incompetent [Academic] Leaders will:

1. Delegate work rather than balance work loads. This allows all attention to be diverted from them in case of failure. It may seem to them that are managing their people but in actuality they are creating work imbalances within the group. It can create unnecessary overtime for some and under utilization of others. A good manager is aware of the skill sets of all the people below them and should allocate work accordingly while trying to enhance the skills of everyone to be even more productive.

2. Reduce all answers to Yes or No rather than explaining their reasoning. This is an example of a crisis manager who can not think farther than a few hours ahead. A yes/no manager finds it a waste of time to find the real answer through intellectual thought. They are already thinking about the next crisis.

3. Not separate personal life from professional life. They will bring their personal problem to work. Working for these types of managers can be very dramatic. They are unable to separate their emotional imbalances while trying to manage people. They are less focused and will not give you the attention and direction you need for success.

4. Manage crisis. If you are a company that has crisis managers, then you can say goodbye to innovation and progression. Proactive thinking is critical to the success of any company. If you are not finding ways to stop or reduce the amount of crisis that has to be managed, then your competition will pass you by. Leaders have to think out of the box and make change.

5. Create an environment where mistakes are unacceptable. Being held accountable for wrong decisions is a fear for them. Making mistakes only helps you become a better person, manager, etc. I use the analogy of a basketball player that has no fouls. If they are not going for the ball and taking chances with their opponent, then they are trying hard enough. Take a chance and don't be scared.

6. Humiliate or reprimand an employee within a group. This is a clear and visible sign of a poor leader. A good leader takes employee problems away from a group setting to a more private setting. If you have a boss that does this, it is time for a visit to human resources.

7. Not stand behind subordinates when they fail. Never leave your people to hang out to dry. Always back them up, right, wrong, or indifferent. If an employee tries their best in a situation and they fail to come through. They should be commended on their effort and not punished for the failure

8. Encourage hard workers not smart workers. I am not impressed with hard workers. A hard worker is usually defined by hours. Smart workers are the ones that I hire and embrace. Smart workers understand the concept of time management and multi-tasking. Poor leaders miss this connection. Smart workers are methodical in their thinking and can generally be successful because of their abilities management projects and time. Hard workers may take twice as long to do the work. It is important to assign work accordingly to the skills and personalities

9. Judge people on hours not performance. This is similar to #8. Again, I am not impressed with overtime junkies. They have lost all perspective on a healthy family/balance. Bad managers will promote the employees that work the most hours and not look at the smart ones who work less, meaning have better time management. Stop watching the lock.

10. Act differently in front of their leaders. This is an indication of low self-confidence. They have doubts about their own ability to lead and they will act like little children when authority is present. A confident person acts the same around everyone. Remember, have respect for them, but also have self-respect.

By Chris Ortiz, from: badbossology.com

Unfair and Wrongful Dismissal - UK

Unfair Dismissal - The Current Position in a Nutshell

Recent statistics reveal that of the 86,000 cases brought before tribunals, 46% involved claims for unfair dismissal, making it the single biggest cause of action.

At common law, an employer can dismiss an employee whenever he chooses, whether he has good reason or not. The only criteria are that he gives the employee full notice and complies with the conditions of the contract. If these measures are followed, the employee has no remedy even where the contract is breached.

Employees will be relieved to learn that the law has progressed from the position above and currently incorporates the concept of "fairness" into the determination of contracts of employment. The burden is now on the employer to demonstrate:

1. He had good reason to dismiss.
2. He acted fairly in dismissing.
3. The general way in which he handled the dismissal was not unfair to the employee.

Is There A Potential Claim For Unfair Dismissal?

There are three basic criteria that need to be satisfied for a claim of unfair dismissal:

1. The employee must be an "eligible employee"

   The first port of call is whether a potential claimant is in fact eligible to claim relief under the Act. Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, states that every "eligible employee" has the right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer.

   Who is an "eligible employee"?
   An eligible employee will, as a general rule be an employee that has completed one year's continuous employment in order to qualify to bring an unfair dismissal claim.

   It is worth noting however, that the answer above is over-simplistic; the question of "eligibility" is a potentially complex one.

   It is important to understand that there are a number of exceptions to the one-year qualifying period that need to be considered. These exceptions do not require the employee to have completed one year's employment in order to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. To illustrate this point, a non-exhaustive list follows:

   1. Dismissals related to trade union membership.
   2. Dismissals related to pregnancy, childbirth or maternity.
   3. Dismissals related to health and safety reasons.
   4. Dismissals related to part-time status.
   5. Dismissals related to enforcing the right to be paid minimum wage.
      

   On the other side of the coin, there are also are categories of employees who will not be able to bring a claim even after one year of employment as listed (non-exhaustive) below:

   1. Employees above normal retirement age.
   2. Member of the armed forces.
   3. Civil servants if national security is involved.
   4. Expiry of a fixed term contract. [Note: a person who has had a series of fixed term contracts of one year or over on aggregate may in some circumstances qualify as an "eligible employee" and therefore be able to bring forth a claim for unfair dismissal.]
   5. Illegal contracts.
   6. Striking workers. [Note: an employee taking part in official industrial action can only complain of unfair dismissal if there has been selective dismissal of employees taking part in that action. If the employer dismisses all the employees taking part in the action, they cannot claim unfair dismissal.]
      
      
2. The employee must have been dismissed

   The second criterion is that the employee must have been dismissed and his employment terminated. If the issue is in dispute, the onus of proof is on the employee to show that he has indeed been dismissed. This would be particularly relevant in the event of a constructive dismissal.

   What is constructive dismissal?
   Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer commits a "repudiatory" or serious breach of an express or implied term of the contract of employment. Contract is a sacred aspect of the English legal system and therefore the breach referred to above must be sufficiently serious to warrant the ending of a contract.

   It is important to realise that unreasonable behaviour by an employer will not of itself be conduct that is sufficiently serious to end the contract. However, if the unreasonable behaviour is sufficiently serious it may amount to a breach of the mutual trust and confidence between the parties which is an implied term in almost any contract.

   Examples of such a situation would be the failure of an employer to pay wages, or to unreasonably change the location of work so as to make the conditions of employment untenable for the employee.

   After the serious breach by the employer, the employee is then entitled to accept the employer's breach and resign from his position. The contract is therefore discharged. It is important that the employee resigns in response to the breach of contract and should make this clear when resigning. If the employee does not make this clear in some circumstances, it may be evidence that he resigned for reasons that may not entitle him to treat himself as constructively dismissed.

   It is vital that the employee accepts the breach within a reasonable time of the repudiation. If he does not, he may be taken to have affirmed the contract and thus lose his right to an unfair dismissal claim.

3. The dismissal must have taken place unfairly

   The onus is on the employer to show that the dismissal is for one of the five permitted reasons below as defined by the ERA 1996, s. 98.

   It is for the employer to establish the only or principal reason for the dismissal, and it must fall within the following:

   1. Relating to the capability or qualifications of the employee.
   2. Relating to the conduct of the employee.
   3. That the employee was redundant.
   4. That the employee could not continue to work in the position held without contravening some statutory provision; or
   5. There was some other substantial reason justifying dismissal of the employee.

The Concept Of "Fairness" Explained

It is also important to note that it is not only dismissal for an unfair reason, which gives an employee the right to claim unfair dismissal.

The conduct and manner in which an employer dismisses an employee is of paramount importance. This is because a dismissal can and will amount to an unfair dismissal in the eyes of a Tribunal if the manner in which the dismissal was handled is unfair. For example, if an employee is not consulted and/or given a fair chance to improve the dismissal may be found to be unfair.

The current law requires an employer to carefully consider the options before him prior to terminating a contract of employment. It is important to note that there are situations in which an employer is entitled to summarily dismiss, i.e. dismiss an employee without any notice. This would be in cases where the employee is guilty of gross misconduct such as stealing or selling confidential company information. In these situations, the employer can simply "fire" an employee without any notice.

What happens once an employee is found to have been unfairly dismissed?

The remedies available are:

1. Reinstatement
   A solution provided by the Tribunal where the employee has his previous position returned to him.
   
   
2. Re-engagement
   This occurs when the employee starts a different job with the same employer, his successor or an associated employer. In practice however, the remedies described at 1. and 2. above are rarely ordered by Tribunals.
   
   
3. Compensation
   Compensation is the most common remedy awarded by Tribunals, and is considered in two parts: the basic award and the compensatory award.

The Basic Award

The basic award has a theoretical maximum of £8,700, but is calculated according to a rigid formula that only rarely reaches the maximum amount by applying a formula based on length of continuous service (years), the appropriate age factor and one week's pay.

A maximum of 20 years employment can be taken into account when calculating the basic award. A week's pay may not be higher than £290, but cannot be lower that the national minimum wage.

The age factor applies to the calculation as follows:

• For each complete year of employment working backwards from dismissal that the employee was aged 41 and over he receives one and a half week's pay.
  
  
• For each complete year of employment working backwards from dismissal that the employee was aged between 22 and 41 he receives one week's pay.
  
  
• For each complete year of employment working backwards from dismissal that the employee was aged below 21 he receives a half week's pay

The basic award will be reduced if:

• The tribunal considers that the employee's conduct before dismissal justifies a reduction.
  
  
• The employee was within a year of age 65 at the effective date of termination.
  
  
• The employee has unreasonably refused an offer of reinstatement from the employer, or has unreasonably prevented the employer from complying with an order for reinstatement; or
  
  
• The employee has already been awarded or has received a redundancy payment; or
  
  
• The employee has been awarded any amount in respect of the dismissal under a designated dismissal procedures agreement.

The basic award can be expressed mathematically as:

Basic award = [years of continuous employment] x [age factor] x [weekly pay]

The Compensatory Award

This award compensates the employee for the loss suffered as a result of the dismissal insofar as the employer is responsible for this loss. As well as covering the loss of earnings between the dismissal and the hearing and an estimate of future loss, the tribunal will also consider matters such as loss of pension, other rights and any reasonable expenses incurred by the employee as a result of the dismissal.

The compensation awarded may be reduced by the tribunal if, for example, it is found that the employee was partly to blame for the dismissal, or that the employee has not tried to find another job in the meantime.

The compensatory award is difficult to predict and is intended to compensate the employee for financial loss and often involves the inexact science of calculation of future earnings. It is currently subject to a maximum award of £58,400.

Time Limit for Bringing a Claim for Unfair Dismissal

An unfair dismissal claim must generally be presented to an employment tribunal before the end of three months from the date employment ended (otherwise referred to as the 'effective date of termination' or 'EDT').

There are means by which this time limit can be extended, most commonly by following a grievance procedure. This is a complicated part of the law surrounding unfair dismissal and it is therefore always best to act on the advice of a trained employment lawyer.

Wrongful Dismissal

Wrongful dismissal is a common law concept. It is simply another name for a dismissal in breach of contract. The most common example of this is the failure to give employees the contractual notice they are entitled to when the circumstances do not justify instant dismissal.

Wrongful dismissal is most relevant in cases where employees are entitled to a long notice period or to a particularly valuable remuneration package. Wrongful dismissal is therefore particularly relevant if the employee is in a senior position, due to the large amount of compensation that can be recovered from the employer for the breach of contract.

Wrongful dismissal can also occur when the employee is constructively dismissed (see note on unfair dismissal for explanation of constructive dismissal).

However, an employee can be dismissed summarily in situations where the employer is entitled to treat the contract as discharged, and dismiss the employee without notice. This will generally occur in serious circumstances such as where an employee is found to be stealing money, selling trade secrets or behaving in a manner equivalent to gross misconduct so that the reasonable response on the part of the employer is to dismiss that employee instantly.

Compensation

There is no statutory limit to the amount of damages a Court can award for wrongful dismissal, though Tribunals are limited to a maximum award of £25,000.

Time Limits for Wrongful Dismissal

High Court - An action must be brought within six years, and there is no upper limit on the level of damages, which may be awarded.

Tribunals - The action must be brought within three months of termination. This limit however, can be extended at the discretion of the Tribunal and through the use of the appropriate grievance procedure.

General Advice

Unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal are totally separate concepts. Thus, a dismissal may be either unfair or wrongful, both unfair and wrongful, or neither.

The Obligation to "Mitigate" the Loss

The employee is under a duty to mitigate the loss of his employment and the consequences that follow. Once employment is terminated, the employee must take steps to obtain suitable alternative employment. This includes accepting reasonable offers of re-employment.

Unfair and wrongful dismissal: Where does one bring the claim?

Currently, the ordinary courts have no jurisdiction to hear unfair dismissal cases. However, since 1994, Tribunals have had jurisdiction to hear both wrongful dismissal claims as well as unfair dismissal claims.

It is important to realise the significance of Tribunals having a limit of £25,000 on the amount of compensation that can be awarded for wrongful dismissal. The result of this is that the most sensible route for a claimant may be to pursue an unfair dismissal claim before an Employment Tribunal, and a breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) claim before a County Court or the High Court.

Costs

As a general rule, no costs are awarded in employment tribunals. This means that bringing a claim in an employment tribunal is relatively risk free as far as legal costs vis a vis Tribunals are concerned.

Unlike most cases held in Courts, costs are not generally awarded in employment tribunals. It is prudent to note however, that tribunals do have the power to award costs if they deem it necessary in the circumstances.

Looking for a woman who has suffered stress at work...

Jenny Johnston is a freelance writer doing a piece for Glamour magazine on workplace stress. She writes:

I'm trying to find women aged 18-40 who have suffered some level of stress at work, either because of bullying, pressure of work etc, and who have behaved in a way they would consider out of character because of it.

It could be something like drinking or taking drugs while on duty, or assaulting a colleague. We have one young woman who lied to her employers about a partner having cancer, because she was too afraid to ask for time off in the normal way. It doesn't need to be bad or criminal behaviour - just something that illustrates how bad things got.

You do not need to be named or photographed but this is available if you are OK to be identified. Please contact Jenny by Tuesday lunchtime [tight she knows] with your phone number and she'll get back to you.

Contact:

Jenny Johnston

jennyjohnston@hotmail.com

Academic Leadership - The Bullying Boss

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

The shifting environment in which the academy must respond as individual academics and as an organizational unit requires a complex set of skills. Utmost, the leader requires highly refined interpersonal skills. To help ensure that qualified candidates are placed into leadership roles, many school level organizations are putting into place administrative licensure requirements. They exist to ensure, at the minimum, knowledge and skills essential for competent practice. The key is “competent practice”. Consequently, some administrative courses are normally required to establish a base of knowledge and skills associated with the demands of leadership. In doing so, administrators are held to a standard similar to their faculty. The hope is such safe guards will minimize the likelihood that a bully boss will be evident and certainly not tolerated. Unfortunately, academia is not known for putting in place similar safe guards. Their unions are hesitant, reluctant, and fear the backlash of the administration. As one union lawyer stated, prime concern is to maintain positive working relationships with the administration.

If this preparatory requirement is left uncheck, fertile ground for the bully boss to enter has been nurtured. With the entrance of the bully boss one has an unprepared administrator with a dangerous power and authority working platform. It is the platform that inspires the bully boss. All actions are justified in giving substance to the purpose and direction of the organization. Their claim is I am just tough and demanding and look how much more profitable the organization is. The bottom line becomes the justification. But, the bottom line has a number of interpretations. In the world of academia, the bottom line is the advancement of knowledge through highly skilled professionals. This is where the insecurities and incompetence of the boss are open for public display. It is an arena the bully boss will do anything to hide from. So, to distract the focus one needs targets. And so, the green flag has been waived.

The green flags permit

Examples of bullying that is allowed to flourish with little, if any, check are:

- Erosion of protected union rights

The faculty members’ rights are casually violated. When the member objects, the objection is viewed as unreasonable and interfering with the work of the Faculty. Lengthy meetings, involving union representation, finally sort the matter out as per collective agreement. But, in the process the member is presented as a trouble maker as opposed to the administration acting unreasonably. For example, collective agreement clearly states a faculty member’s teaching workload is not to be over all terms unless mutually agreed. Administration arbitrarily violates the agreement and refuses to discuss the situation with the faculty member. Member is forced to grieve administrative action as only available alternative. Result is numerous meetings with each agreement reached subsequently violated by the Administration. Each violation forces the member to file a grievance. As the grievances increase in number member is increasing viewed as a very difficult faculty member to deal with. The member is portrayed as unwilling to cooperate with the administration.

- Extreme usage of the collective agreement

The administration invokes or threatens to invoke disciplinary measures without establishment of the facts. The process imposes emotional and professional stress on the faculty member. Again, the faculty member is presented as a problem that must be dealt with as opposed to the administration acting unreasonably. For example, the administration receives a letter from a student expressing dissatisfaction about the structure of a course taken and successfully completed several months prior. Without first approaching the faculty member about the concerns in the letter and thereby establish a more complete understanding of the situation, the Administration writes a letter to the faculty member informing the member they are being charged under the disciplinary section of the collective agreement. The full process of the section is active and the professional status of the member is placed in jeopardy without the member having prior knowledge of why. Investigation as per disciplinary section reveals there is no justification to the Administration’s action and matter is withdrawn. But, Administration maintains documentation on member’s file.

- Erosion of professional conduct

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

- Disruption of individual careers

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

- Disruption of collegiality among individuals

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

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

This preventive step to bullying has been taken by at least two universities in the United Kingdom. City University London deals with bullying within its harassment and dignity at work policy. Specifically, the policy defines bullying as “a serious form of harassment. It may involve actions, comments, physical contact or behaviour that is found to be objectionable. Personal vindictiveness against an individual(s) is also a factor. Bullying can be defined as persistent actions, criticisms or personal abuse either in public or private, which humiliates, intimidates, undermines or demeans the individual(s) involved.

“Bullying is to be distinguished from vigorous academic debate or the actions of a manager making reasonable (but perhaps unpopular) requests of his/her staff including the need to manage performance effectively” (www.city.ac.uk/hr/policies/harass_policy.html).

The University of Cambridge also deals with bullying within its university harassment policy. Specifically, the policy defines bullying as follows:

“Bullying is a form of psychological harassment; it is intimidation which serves to undermine the self-esteem, confidence, competence, effectiveness and integrity of the bully’s target.

“Bullying behaviour may include continual, undeserved criticism, belittling remarks, imposition of unreasonable deadlines, unreasonable demands for perfection, arbitrary and inconsistent demands, shouting, swearing and offensive language, constant interruption in discussion, and the display of overbearing or intrusive behaviour. Bullying behaviour may also be manifested by electronic means of communication such as email.

“Bullying is behaviour which may take place between those of different status or those of the same status. Bullying when reinforced by power within a relationship is particularly reprehensible. [emphasis added]

“Behaviour which makes the recipient feel threatened, humiliated or patronised and which undermines his or her self-confidence or self-esteem is unacceptable, whatever the context.

“The defining features of bullying are that the behaviour is unacceptable to the recipient, is unwanted by the recipient, and would be regarded as bullying by reasonable people” (www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/personnel/policy).

The effects of bullying on the individual and the organization have clearly been recognized by these two universities. What is important to acknowledge is in each policy management is not presumed to be innocent of actions. In fact, the University of Cambridge makes the statement that “bullying when reinforced by power within a relationship is particularly reprehensible”. The North American normal reality of failure to have policy on the issue of bullying protects the bully boss not the victim. This win is not a win for the organization. Academia relies on skilled professionals. A bully boss will serve to motivate the practice of these skills downward; even for the non-targeted victim. For, the non-targeted could easily become the target.

Concluding comments

“Bullying is a sign of emotional immaturity in a leader” (Elash, 2004). At a time when academia needs to serve the knowledge economy in an innovative manner, the inaction, unwillingness to act, and fear to act against bullying from the boss within the organization is a sad commentary on the academy. The prevalence of bullying within academia is of concern. As noted by Czernis (2005), “respondents to The Times Higher survey had worked at their jobs an average of seven years and reported bullying as lasting typically from two to five years, suggesting academic staff who completed the survey spent a large proportion of their working lives being bullied” (p. A8). This is a tragedy. The human loss in potential and the organizational loss in possibilities are and should be intolerable. As Bennis (1989) observes, “ Leadership can be felt throughout an organization. It gives pace and energy to the work and empowers the work force. Empowerment is the collective effect of leadership. In organizations with effective leaders, empowerment is most evident in four themes: [people feel significant, learning and competence matter, people are part of a community, and work is exciting]” (pp. 22-23).

The tolerance of administrative bullying is costly to every aspect of an organization. The cost for the academy and society is exponential. The reason is the pivotal role in the development and advancement of knowledge projected onto the academy. This role is hindered when its implementation is under the guidance of administrative bullying

References

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

City University London. (2005). Harassment and Dignity at Work Policy. (www.city.ac.uk/hr/policies/harass_policy.html).

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

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

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

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

University of Cambridge (2005). Dealing with Bullying and Harassment: Advice and Instructions for Staff. (www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/personnel/policy).
--------------------------
By Anne L Jefferson Ph.D., Academic Leadership - The Online Journal. Volume 4 - Issue 4, Feb 12, 2007