Staff 'swotted' by managers - Birmingham University, UK

Senior managers at Birmingham University have identified a key "threat" to their strategic goals - their own academics. This was the conclusion of an analysis by Birmingham's "leadership team" of the university's "strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats" (SWOT) in an early, internal draft of a new human resources strategy.

Academics were top of the list of threats and, although the university has since removed them from the analysis, representatives say that the original document highlights wider concerns across the sector about the general decline of the status of academics as universities become business-oriented.

They said that it reflected a trend where the traditional notion of universities as autonomous communities of scholars was being superseded by corporate practices and "customer" students.

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union said: "The shift towards a market in higher education is inevitably bringing about a consumer culture in universities and the biggest losers will continue to be staff.

She said that academics were "determined to retain the spirit of what a university should be, even in this age of marketisation" and need "a renewed commitment to the principles of higher education as first and foremost a learning environment."

The issue is likely to be a key theme of the first conference of the 120,000-strong UCU at the end of May. A motion from Nottingham Trent University, to be debated, says that "the current managerialist governance culture is... doing irreparable damage to institutional organisational structures".

Another, from Sussex University, says that "current thinking about HE management, ie that the VC must act like a private sector CEO in order to 'manage' the university, is erroneous". It insists that "universities are not businesses" and managerialism is "anathema to the philosophy of higher education".

The Birmingham branch of the UCU said that it was pleased that the latest draft of the university's human resources strategy had dropped the notion that the academics were a threat. But a newsletter from the branch says that the latest version still raises questions about the university's commitment to traditional academic values of autonomy, collegiality and trust.

The branch calculates that while the words "manager" and "management" appear 119 times in the document, "researcher" appears five times, and "teaching" appears six times. The word "academic" appears twice after its removal from the list of threats.

The branch says that it fears that "rather than being treated as self-motivated creative professionals who are experts in their areas" academics are being seen as "work-units to be managed, performance-managed and even micromanaged".

"UCU members who want to work in a leading research and teaching university should be seriously alarmed by it," the newsletter says.

The strategy document, seen by The Times Higher, set "core themes" of the strategy including "performance management; reward; talent management". It includes a strong emphasis on performance management, and performance-related pay.

A list of ideal aspirations for employees includes: "If I under-perform against my targets I am clear on what the impact would be on my salary, bonus and career development. I know that if I underperform, my salary inclusive of cost of living increases will not progress."

The university said: "Because the university values the expertise and intellect of all its staff, both academic and non-academic, a cross-section of colleagues were part of a consultation process that has led to a draft HR Strategy.

"All members of staff were invited to participate in a series of discussion groups to determine the themes of the draft HR Strategy... 150 took part.

"In addition, heads of school, senior academic managers and the campus unions were consulted prior to the publication of the draft for the second stage of consultation, which is now taking place within the university.

"This strategy will enable the university to achieve its ambitions. As the consultation process shows, we believe that engaging in constructive discussion with staff will enhance the draft HR Strategy. That discussion is best held internally within the university. The full strategy will be published later this year."

From: Times Higher Education Supplement

Matters Concerning Members of the Governing Body - Conflicts of Interest

It is central to the proper conduct of public business that chairs and members of governing bodies should act and be perceived to act impartially, and not be influenced in their role as governors by social or business relationships.

Good practice requires that a member of a governing body who has a pecuniary, family or other personal interest in any matter under discussion at any meeting of the governing body or one of its committees at which he/she is present shall, as soon as practicable, disclose the fact of his/her interest to the meeting and shall withdraw from that part of the meeting.

A member of the governing body is not, however, considered to have a pecuniary interest in matters under discussion merely because he/she is a member of staff or a student of the institution. Nor does the restriction of involvement in matters of direct personal or pecuniary interest prevent members of the governing body from considering and voting on proposals to insure the governing body against liabilities which it might incur.

Institutions should maintain a register of interests of all members of the governing body. The secretary and any other senior officer closely associated with the work of the governing body, for example the finance director, should also submit details of any interests. The register should be publicly available and should be kept up-to-date.

Details of the terms of appointment should be set out as appropriate in the letter of appointment, but institutions may wish to seek a signed undertaking that governors will act responsibly.

The governing body should have the power to remove any member of the governing body from office, and must do so if the member breaches the conditions of his/her appointment.

From: Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK

Question: Does anybody know of a university governing body that has removed from office a fellow governor due to breaches of the conditions of his/her appointment?

Educated workers: the bully's pick

SAN FRANCISCO — A new national poll reveals that America's work force perceives abuse by supervisors to be a common experience.

The poll, released recently by the Employment Law Alliance, found that nearly one-half of the employees surveyed report having been subjected to a range of bullying behaviors including mockery and personal insults, as well as job performance criticism in front of co-workers. Employees who are older, more highly educated or work in the Northeast United States are the most likely to experience workplace abuse, while younger and Southern workers are the least likely.

"When this many employees perceive they are being mistreated, employers need to pay attention, especially because almost two-thirds of the American work force believes employees should be able to sue the abusive boss and the employer," said attorney Margaret Wood Hassan, a member of the Employment Practice Group at Pierce Atwood LLP in Portland, Maine, and Portsmouth and Concord, who is also a New Hampshire state senator.

The poll addressed abusive behavior by supervisors not typically regarded as serious enough to warrant special legal protections against harassment or discrimination based on race, religion, sex, disability or other protected classes.

Highlights of the poll include:

* 44 percent said they have worked for a supervisor or employer whom they consider abusive.
* More than half of American workers have been the victim of, or heard about supervisors/employers behaving abusively by making sarcastic jokes/teasing remarks, rudely interrupting, publicly criticizing, giving dirty looks to, or yelling at subordinates, or ignoring them as if they were invisible.
* Southern workers (34 percent) are less likely to have experience with an abusive boss than are their Northeastern (56 percent) and Midwestern (48 percent) counterparts.
* Workers with some college or a college degree (47 percent) are more likely to have been a victim of abuse by a supervisor or employer, compared to workers with a high school education or less (34 percent).
* 64 percent said that they believe an abused worker should have the right to sue to recover damages.

"There's a growing recognition that abusive bosses are more than just an annoyance, but a very real problem and that employees will increasingly demand protection, if not from employers, then the courts," said Stephen J. Hirschfeld, ELA'S CEO and an employment lawyer with the California-based law firm of Curiale Dellaverson Hirschfeld & Kraemer LLP.

Hirschfeld noted that the survey comes at a time when nearly one dozen state legislatures are considering laws specifically prohibiting bullying in the workplace, when workers increasingly use the term "mobbing" to refer to employee abuse by co-workers, and a nonprofit think tank, The Workplace Bullying Institute (www.bullybusters.org), is regularly featured in national and global media as it promotes workplace victims' rights.

In reacting to the poll results, Dr. Robert Sutton, Stanford University professor of management science and engineering, and co-director of the Center for Work, Technology and Organization said, "This national survey adds to the growing evidence showing that abuse of power is a rampant problem in the American workplace. It is time for senior management to realize that this conduct damages their people and is costing them a fortune.

"Demeaned workers respond with a reduced commitment and loss of productivity, and they run for the exits to find more humane bosses," Sutton said. "And these costs will keep escalating as more victims realize that they can fight back in court."

According to Hassan, companies need to closely examine their personnel policies, supervisor-employee relations and management training to ensure these issues are dealt with proactively and costly litigation is avoided.

"Most employers probably believe that mistreatment of employees doesn't occur in their workplace — that it's someone else's problem," Hassan said. "While it's true that abuse may well be in the eye of the beholder, a supervisor's idea of simply holding someone accountable may be, in the mind of some employees, a reason to hire a lawyer. The willingness of American workers to think in terms of litigation is a fact of life employers must confront."

Hassan noted that the trend should concern employers.

"Our work force is aging and our economy is transitioning from production workers on the factory floor to knowledge workers in the office," she said. "Given the results of the ELA poll, which indicate that older and college-educated workers are already more likely to see themselves as victims of workplace abuse, the likelihood that employers will face these claims is only going to increase."

Hassan added that if employers and individual supervisors can be sued over even the perception of mean-spirited treatment, they will be reluctant to hold employees to even reasonable performance standards.

"Employers need to correct this problem before legislators believe they need to step in and start enabling more lawsuits," the attorney said.

Companies need only look north for a cautionary tale. Recently, a Canadian employer was ordered to pay $5,000 as moral damages for inflicting psychological abuse under Quebec's anti-psychological harassment law. That law provides a right to recover damages for "any vexatious behavior" that affects an employee's dignity or psychological or physical integrity.

The poll, conducted under the supervision of Dr. Theodore Reed, president of the Philadelphia-based Reed Group, was based on a survey of a representative sample of 1,000 American adults in early March 2007. Detailed interviews were conducted with 534 full- or part-time workers. The confidence interval for this sample size is +/- 4.24%.

From: http://www.seacoastonline.com

Huge bill for injury claims revealed

Suffolk (UK) schools have paid out £646,000 in personal injury claims over the past five years, it emerged today.

The biggest damages payments were given to a teacher, who was awarded nearly £200,000 after being attacked.

Although Suffolk County Council declined to name the school because of data protection issues, The Evening Star has learned the teacher received £199,967.14 in compensation.

The damages were part of liability payouts totalling nearly £666,000 to staff, parents and pupils following incidents at schools.

The largest amount paid to a student for a personal injury at school was £38,322.37, with another getting £11,683 as a result of an accident.

The table of compensation payments was released by Suffolk County Council after a request under the Freedom of Information Act by The Evening Star.

A total of fifty-nine claims were successfully pursued against nurseries and schools run by the council, with 38 made by the public and 21 made by employees.

Among the highest payouts were £ 23,193.64 against Stowmarket High School, £11,683 against Highfield Nursery in Ipswich, and £38,322.37 against Benjamin Britten High School in Lowestoft.

Personal injuries to employees and students also accounted for 12 out of 13 five-figure packages ranging between £10,977 and £90,743 between 2001 and 2006.

The remaining £11,000 handout was to a member of the public who was injured due to a 'property defect'.

The compensation payments were made for a multitude of reasons including theft, accidental damage, bullying, personal injury, workplace injury, and vandalism.

A Suffolk County Council spokesman said: “The total value of the compensation payments that have been made over the past five years in relation to incidents in Suffolk schools is £665,851.

“This represents an average of around £400 per school per year. The total of all compensation payments in relation to the council's 357 schools over the five-year period amounts to around 0.2 per cent of the total schools budget for the current year.

“The figures are heavily skewed by a small number of large payments, such as the single largest payment of £199,967 which was paid in relation to an assault on a member of staff by a pupil. Most schools will experience such serious incidents extremely rarely.

“Claims in respect of the council's responsibilities for public and employer's liability are assessed by the council's insurers on its behalf.”

From: http://www.eveningstar.co.uk

University of Wolverhampton, UK - Stress, Depression, Bullying

Anonymous said...

Is there anybody who knows how I can find the statistic (University by University) about stress and depression?

Also I am interested to know if there is a database reporting how much (if any!) Universities have been fined by the Health and Safety Executive for not caring about stress and depression.

Regards
S_G_F.

PS: Health and Safety executive Mr. Ratty has confirmed that soon investigation will be carried out at the University of Wolverhampton for issues relate to stress, depression, bullying leading to depression. If you please would like to witness events or if you are suffering or suffered of depression / stress due to bullying, workloads or for other reasons, please discretely visit the yahoo groups bullied_academics. Soon I will introduce a topic in which you can discretely read the happenings of the investigation and share your experiences to help bring evidence to the investigation.

--------------------------------------
We are not aware of any body in the UK keeping statistics and/or detailed data regarding stress, depression, and/or bullying per university. Sadly, not even our union is doing so.

We have never heard of the Health and Safety Executive imposing penalties of any kind on any university in the UK due to unacceptable levels of stress, depression, and/or bullying. We would like to know if anybody has any info on this.

Lastly, it is well within the remit of the Health and Safety Executive to investigate unacceptable levels of stress, depression, and/or bullying in universities, but is it not sad and telling that university bodies themselves (HEFCE, QAA, Universities UK - previously known as Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals) are not even remotely interested.

Self-policing in terms of stress, depression, and/or bullying is not working. A good example is the requirement for universities in the UK to publish the results of monitoring how they apply and deal with equal opportunities every year - has anybody seen any of these annual results?

Make a fuss - kick up a stink - make noise - voice your concerns - silence is not an option. If we don't do it, nobody will do it for us.

Depression and anxiety a ‘silent epidemic’ in the workplace

Millions of UK workers are likely to be suffering from depression and panic attacks because they are so stressed out by their jobs, new research has suggested.

The latest 24-7 survey — a research project conducted by the Work Life Balance Centre and the universities of Keele, Coventry and Wolverhampton — found that two thirds of employees have been made ill by work, with 48% of these suffering from depression, and 43% suffering from anxiety or panic attacks.

Eight in ten of those asked have a problem juggling the competing demands of work and home, while the same amount feel that at times they cannot cope with the demands placed upon them.

Women (69.6%) were even more likely to feel this way than men (63%) although both figures have increased in the last 12 months.

Long hours could be one reason for such stress. The survey found that many people work over their contracted hours (one in ten does a minimum of 49 hours a week, while only one in 100 is contracted to do so). Most do so to keep up with their workloads. A third of employees resent these long hours, and more than a quarter miss family and social occasions for work.

On a positive note more than half of workers ensure work does not dominate their lives, feel more fulfilled when busy and enjoyed the challenges of their jobs. Despite the higher stress levels, women generally feel more positive about work than men. Almost three quarters of bosses are sympathetic to time off or changes to work schedules to help deal with family or caring responsibilities.

Julie Hurst, Director of the Work Life Balance Centre says:

"Our relationship with work continues to be a complex one. On the one hand people have reported many positives about enjoying their jobs. At the same time however the levels of depression and anxiety have been increasing. Depression and anxiety have become a silent epidemic in the workplace and yet there is so much that can be done to reduce both problems. I would urge all employers to look carefully at these issues and arrange access to the appropriate forms of help, as it is in the long term interests of the business to support healthy, and ultimately productive, employees. At the most basic level having employees absent through these illnesses costs an organisation far more than it does to provide the proper support to help them get back on their feet and back to work. And that is without even considering the humanitarian case."

Stress has become a problem for employers that cannot be ignored; especially considering the number of high pay out cases there have been in the past few years. For example, in one recent case an employee was awarded £140,000 because of excessive workload resulting from the need to cover for absent colleagues.

As well as the problems of absence and under performance, there is no limit to the compensation that employees can get from a finding of negligence against employers. Employers owe their employees both specific duties under heath and safety legislation and a common law duty to take reasonable care to ensure their health and safety. If an employee can show that they suffered from stress related ill health and his employer could or ought to have foreseen and prevented it, the employer could be found to be negligent.

Recent joint CIPD/HSE research has suggested that a manager’s behaviour can have a major impact on employees’ stress levels affecting the wellbeing of employees and organisational performance. New guidance has been launched to help employers tackle these issues. The new guidance draws on 19 key management behaviours that play a vital role in preventing, identifying, and tackling stress effectively. The behaviours have been used to create a framework enabling line managers to work on the skills required to reduce and prevent stress at work.

From: http://www.workplacelaw.net

Groupthink

Etymology: group + -think (as in doublethink)

A pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics.

Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.

Symptoms of Groupthink

Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:

1. Illusion of invulnerability – Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.

2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.

3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.

5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.

6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.

7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.

8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

When the above symptoms exist in a group that is trying to make a decision, there is a reasonable chance that groupthink will happen, although it is not necessarily so. Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision. When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them. These group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking since groups experiencing groupthink fail to consider all alternatives and seek to maintain unanimity. Decisions shaped by groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes.

From: http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/groupthink.shtml

Statutory Code of Practice on Racial Equality in Employment - UK

...Further and higher education institutions have a specific duty to monitor, by racial group, the recruitment of staff and their career progress. They are also expected to take reasonable and practicable steps to publish the results of their monitoring each year...

If the monitoring data show significant disparities between racial groups, employers should investigate the possible causes, and examine all the arrangements, procedures and practices that give effect to their policies in the field of employment, including recruitment, training, promotion, grievance and discipline, performance assessment and dismissal. The absence of disparities for ethnic minorities as a whole, or for one racial group in particular, should not be taken as evidence that ‘discrimination is not a problem’. The aim should be to make sure none of the rules, requirements, procedures or practices used, formally or informally, put any racial groups at a significant disadvantage...

Employers must not discriminate on racial grounds in the way they respond to grievances, or invoke disciplinary measures. Disciplinary action is an extreme measure and should be taken fairly and consistently, regardless of the worker’s racial group. Equally, allegations of racial discrimination or harassment must always be taken seriously and investigated promptly, not dismissed as ‘oversensitivity’ on a worker’s part.

...It is recommended that employers monitor, by racial group, the number of workers who have brought grievances or been subjected to disciplinary action (public authorities with at least 150 full-time-equivalent workers have a legal duty to do this; and the outcomes of each case. It will also be useful to be able to match the data with information about the workers’ grades, their managers and the areas of the organisation where they work.

...It is recommended that, before taking disciplinary action, employers should consider the possible effect on a worker’s behaviour of the following:

a. racist abuse or other provocation on racial grounds;
b. difficulty in communicating with, or understanding, colleagues; and
c. different cultural norms.

As part of their equal opportunities review, employers should use the monitoring data on grievances and disciplinary action to see if there are significant disparities...

It is recommended that employers monitor all dismissals, by racial group. They will find it useful to be able to match this data with information about the workers’ grades, the areas of the organisation where they work, and their managers...

Responsibilities

A. The governing body - The governors are responsible for:

• making sure the institution stays within the Race Relations Act and meets all its duties, including the general duty and the specific duties; and
• making sure the race equality policy and its procedures are followed.

B. The Vice-Chancellor / Principal / Rector - The Vice-Chancellor / Principal / Rector is responsible for:

• giving a consistent and high-profile lead on race equality issues;
• promoting the race equality policy inside and outside the institution; and
• making sure the race equality policy and its procedures are followed.

C. Managers, including heads of departments - Managers and heads of departments are responsible for:

• putting the policy and its strategies and procedures into practice;
• making sure all staff know their responsibilities, and receive support and training in carrying these out; and
• following the relevant procedures and taking action against staff or students who discriminate for reasons of race, colour, nationality, or ethnic or national origins.

From: http://www.cre.gov.uk/index.html [Commission for Racial Equality]

Ten Top Tips for Promoting Dignity at Work - A Good Practice Guide for Higher Education Institutions

1. It is essential to have senior management support for any initiatives you put in place – as well as the executive team, you may find it useful to involve governors in raising the profile of dignity at work issues. If the head of your institution and your governing Body are actively involved, for example in attending training sessions, it is much easier to encourage all other members of staff to do so too.

2. Having a well-written policy is vital – but this is only the first step, not an end in itself. Even the most skilfully crafted policy is useless if no-one within the institution has the confidence to use it. The chances of any policy being successful are much greater if it is part of a wider institutional approach that includes consideration of issues such as stress management, the use of advisers and the investigation process.

3. Help your managers to understand the differences between firm management and bullying – focus attention on how staff are managed and the ways in which communication takes place, as well as on the formal processes and procedures.

4. Emphasise the role of every member of the institution in combating bullying and harassment – those who witness it have as important a role to play as those who experience it directly. Include dignity at work as one of your core organisational values.

5. Offer a variety of sources of information and ways of accessing support. Not everyone will be comfortable talking to a stranger on the telephone, but others will prefer to discuss sensitive issues with someone who is not involved.

6. Communicate your policy and support services as widely as possible, using as many different types of media as you can. Some people do not have easy access to e-mail and the internet, so don’t confine your efforts solely to electronic means of communication.

7. Monitor and evaluate any initiatives you put in place – you will not have any evidence that they are working unless you are able to effectively measure your progress. Think carefully about how you are going to monitor the usage of every service you have in place and ensure you track your statistics over time to identify trends.

8. Consider having a staff attitude survey on a regular (every two or three years) basis. In this way, you will have an indication of how staff feel about working at your institution and you will have valuable data about a range of significant issues by which to track your progress in a qualitative way.

9. Train all your staff in the operation of the policy, placing emphasis on the organisational culture you are aiming for – and make sure that you include refresher training in your plans.

10. The culture of your institution must reflect what you say in your policies in order to effectively tackle bullying and harassment issues. Ensure that you work in partnership with the trades unions to promote these values and to identify any issues that need to be addressed. Make sure that you treat everyone fairly, irrespective of their status and position within the institution.

From: http://www.ecu.ac.uk/resources/daw/

Mutual trust and confidence

In Malik & anor v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (in compulsory liquidation) 1997 ICR 606 (Brief 592) the House of Lords finally confirmed the existence of a term which the lower courts and tribunals had been using and developing for many years, namely that the employer will not, ‘without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee’. While the duty is on both sides – trust and confidence must be mutual if the employment relationship is to work – most cases where it is raised are constructive dismissal cases brought by employees alleging a breach by the employer.

Disciplinary matters

Mutual trust and confidence can be undermined by the way in which an employer carries out a disciplinary procedure. In Alexander Russell plc v Holness EAT 677/93 EAT upheld a tribunal’s finding that an employer had been oppressive in summoning an employee to a disciplinary hearing and giving him a final written warning for poor timekeeping, where he had been given a written warning for the same thing only 24 hours earlier. Such treatment might have been appropriate, however, where the complaint was one of gross misconduct.

Employers should exercise caution when suspending an employee, even where it is specifically permitted by the contract. In Gogay v Hertfordshire County Council G, a residential care worker, was suspended pending investigations into alleged sexual abuse of a child with learning difficulties, which later turned out to be unfounded. G suffered psychiatric illness as a result of the suspension and investigation, and was unable to return to work.

The Court of Appeal held that to accuse someone of sexual abuse was likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence, and that the Council had no reasonable and proper cause for their actions. The information given by the child had been vague and, although further investigation was required, it could not be said that the allegation necessarily involved sexual abuse. The Council should have considered whether it was necessary to separate G from the child and, if so, whether some form of action other than suspension could be contemplated, such as a temporary transfer to other work, or a short period of leave.

Impossible tasks

In Hellman International Forwarders Ltd v Cooper EAT 1040/96 an employee was told that if she did not complete an enormous backlog of paperwork within a fortnight she would lose her job. She resigned, and the tribunal found that the task would have been impossible. EAT upheld the tribunal’s finding that she had been constructively dismissed.