University Employment Law Briefing

Gibbons Report recommends abolition of the statutory dismissal and grievance procedures.

Employers need 'clear, simple, non-prescriptive guidelines on grievances, discipline and dismissal … encouraging early dispute resolution". Sounds familiar? This was of course the objective of the statutory dismissal and grievance procedures, introduced in October 2004 to promote the resolution of employment disputes in the workplace rather than in the employment tribunal. But this recommendation comes from a DTI commissioned report which concludes that the statutory procedures have failed to meet this objective and recommends that they should be abolished, a mere two and a half years after they were first introduced.

The Gibbons Report, commissioned by the DTI to review employment dispute resolution in Great Britain makes 17 recommendations which, if implemented, will have far reaching consequences for the handling of workplace disputes. The most significant of these is the recommendation that the statutory dispute resolution procedures be abolished in their entirety – a damning indictment on those procedures but one which echoes the sentiments of many employers in the sector. Michael Gibbons, the author of the Report, said 'I was struck by the overwhelming consensus that the intentions of the 2004 Dispute Resolution Regulations were sound and there was a genuine attempt to keep them simple. However, they have had unintended consequences which far outweigh their benefits.'

There is a general consensus among employers – in the University sector and beyond – that the statutory procedures have created an unnecessarily high administrative burden for both the employer and employee. The Report highlights that many businesses consider that the statutory procedures have led to an increase in the number of disputes they experience. Further, rather than encouraging early resolution, the procedures have led to a more formal process being used to address problems which might easily have been resolved informally. As a result, conflicts escalate, taking up more management time and engaging employees in an unnecessarily formal and stressful process. There is evidence that both employers and employees are seeking legal advice on their disputes at an earlier stage than before, and that the costs and management time involved in dealing with disputes is steadily increasing.

The Report also notes that the application of the 'one size fits all' formal approach inherent in the statutory procedures creates significant problems – the procedures often appear excessive or difficult to apply to the situation in question. The strong links between the formalities of the statutory procedure and employment tribunal proceedings creates a focus on ensuring that the procedures are strictly adhered to rather than addressing the causes of the underlying problem. [OUR COMMENT: Yes, the causes of the underlying problem, i.e. institutionalised bullying and harassment by managers.] This is particularly so given that an employer risks a dismissal being found to be 'automatically unfair' if the statutory dismissal procedure is not followed. The procedures also make both parties more defensive, and entrench their respective positions, making it more likely that they will ultimately resolve their dispute in the employment tribunal. [OUR COMMENT: And is this the fault of the employee?] Alternative approaches are needed to provide more appropriate methods of achieving an earlier, amicable and cost-effective resolution to workplace disputes and grievances. [OUR COMMENT: At last some sense.]

Implications of the abolition of the statutory procedures

It is highly likely that the Gibbons Report will result in the statutory procedures being abolished or undergoing radical amendment. This will bring some immediate benefits for Universities, particularly in dismissal cases where there would no longer be the risk of automatic unfair dismissal for failing to follow the statutory dismissal procedure. [OUR COMMENT: Is this a good thing for employees?] This may be especially helpful in relation to fixed term contracts, where many institutions still struggle at times to manage the expiry of a fixed term contract in a manner consistent with the statutory '3 step' procedure, or where the volume of fixed term contract dismissals makes compliance impracticable.

Similarly the removal of the risk of increased compensation for failing to follow the statutory grievance procedure will be welcomed by Universities, especially given the wide interpretation of what counts as a statutory grievance. [OUR COMMENT: Yes, they get off the hook.] Further, the risk that managers may rush to use formal procedures to deal with any complaint – for fear of breaching the statutory grievance procedure – would also be removed. There may also be no need to hear post-termination grievances from former employees.

However, there would also be some disadvantages. Abolishing the statutory procedures may see a return to the pre-October 2004 situation where the employer first becomes aware of a dispute when it receives a tribunal complaint form. It is also likely that any new regime would be less prescriptive than the statutory procedures and therefore less certain in its application.

What will replace the statutory procedures?

The key issue is what, if anything, will replace the statutory procedures. The Gibbons Report offers few concrete clues. One recommendation is that the Government should look at ways of minimising disputes by simplifying employment law 'recognising that its complexity creates uncertainty and costs for employers and employees'. This is a welcome objective but the report gives no suggestions as to how this can be achieved, noting only that the impact of European Directives may create difficulties. The Report also recommends that the Government considers ways to enable tribunals to weed out unmeritorious claims, but again without any specific recommendations as to what new powers tribunals should receive.

The other main recommendations of the Report are:

• that the statutory procedures should be replaced with clear simple non-prescriptive guidelines on grievances, discipline and dismissal. This sounds very much like a slightly beefed-up version of the ACAS Codes of Practice;
  
  
• that tribunals should have new powers to take into account the reasonableness of the parties behaviour and procedure when making awards and cost orders. This could see similar powers to reduce or increase compensation as currently exist in relation to compliance with the statutory procedures, but perhaps with less predictability of what would constitute default;
  
  
• that the tribunal claim form should be revised to reduce its length and complexity. This would see a return to something like the pre-October 2004 version;
  
  
• that the fixed time limits for ACAS conciliation introduced in October 204 should be removed;
  
  
• that claimants should have to access a helpline service before bringing a tribunal complaint. The helpline would advise on alternatives to bringing tribunal claims and its use would be mandatory as claimants would only be able to access a claim form via this helpline. Similarly, employers would only be able to get a response form to complete once they had received advice on the potential consequences of defending a complaint. The aim is to ensure that both parties are advised on the reality of bringing tribunal claims and the benefits of seeking to resolve their dispute by other means; [OUR COMMENT: What means exactly?]
  
  
• that increased emphasis should be given to mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution, to reduce the number of claims proceeding to tribunal. This could see the introduction of a free early dispute resolution service before a claim is lodged, or the greater use of judicial mediation when a dispute reaches the tribunal system. Tribunals should be able to take into account the parties' attempts to settle disputes, or their willingness to explore resolution through mediation, when making awards of compensation or costs, giving the parties an incentive to explore settlement or mediation;
  
  
• that employers, trade unions and other employee organisations should be "challenged" to commit to implementing and promoting early dispute resolution, for example through greater use of in house mediation, early neutral evaluation of claims and provisions in contracts of employment which made mediation of disputes a contractual obligation for employer and employee, whether as part of, or in addition to, the employer's grievance procedure. [OUR COMMENT: Ah, well here is some work for our union (UCU).]

Conclusions

The clear message from the Gibbons Report is that the measures introduced in October 2004 – statutory procedures, new claims forms, fixed ACAS conciliation periods – have failed to reduce the number of disputes and their related costs for employers, employees and the tribunal system. However, it is unlikely that we will see a simple return to the pre-October 2004 position. Universities will need to keep up to speed with these developments, particularly once concrete proposals are issues by the Government for reform of the existing disputes resolution procedure. In the meantime, it may be useful to consider and explore sources of alternative dispute resolution and whether there is a greater role for mediation – or mediation-style procedures – to complement existing grievance processes.

From: http://www.pinsentmasons.com
----------------------------------------------------
Perhaps our union (UCU) may wish to engage in this process and not just follow what the DTI recommends. We welcome the emphasis on mediation-style procedures but these will require senior managers who are trained appropriately - some wishful thinking here.

Why grievance procedures are inappropriate for dealing with bullying

Grievance procedures are inappropriate and ineffective in dealing with bullying for a variety of reasons:

• Bullying is equivalent to rape (it's psychological and emotional rape because of its intrusive and violational nature) and grievance procedures force the victim of this rape to have to relive the trauma repeatedly - this could be a breach of Article 3 of the Human Rights Act: No one shall be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.
  
  
• The person who normally chairs the grievance is usually the bully, or a friend of the bully or appointed by managers with the single purpose to hide the truth and institutional/organisational failings.
  
  
• If the bully is a co-worker, the manager who would handle the grievance has already failed as a manager for allowing the bullying to occur and for failing to deal with the bullying before it got to the grievance stage. Common practice at this stage is for the manager to give a statement against the victim and lie.
  
  
• The bullying manager has lots of friends in HR and management and will blacken the target's reputation before grievance procedures begin. This is part of the bullying tactics - for example, management may leak to a newspaper confidential information.
  
  
• Most bullies will successfully lie, cheat and deceive their way through grievance.
  
  
• The bully will make sure the grievance lasts as long a possible (eg a year or more). This is a common tactic to wear down the victim.
  
  
• The bully will deny the target access to records, sometimes rifling the target's desk and stealing notes. The bully may even falsify documents. White-collar crime is common.
  
  
• The bully manager will ban the target from having contact with fellow employees. This is breach of Article 11 of the Human Rights convention.
  
  
• The bully will threaten fellow workers into withdrawing support for the target. Intimidation of co-workers is common - if you support him we will not renew your contract and if you are a part-time lecturer/teacher you will think twice about supporting the victim.
  
  
• The bully and the employer will limit representation to a union representative (many reps are untrained, unsupported, and some are part of the problem) or co-worker (all of whom are too frightened to stand up for a fellow worker). Often there is no union rep and no co-worker.
  
  
• The so-called 'investigating officers' are appointed by managers - in effect, management is judge and jury.
  
  
• Investigating officers and chairs of grievance hearings very rarely had specific and suitable training to deal with workplace bullying.
  
  
• Universities have almost unlimited access to funds (tax payer's money) - the victim has to use his/her savings.
  

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]