Let us not forget the governors...

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has produced practical guidance for auditors and companies on the obligations in the revised Combined Code on Corporate Governance. Encouraging companies to follow our approach, the ICAEW recommends that boards should ask about the following questions:

• Is there evidence that the board regularly considers whistleblowing procedures as part of its review of the system of internal control?
• Are there issues or incidents which have otherwise come to the board's attention which they would have expected to have been raised earlier under the company's whistleblowing procedures?
• Where appropriate, has the internal audit function performed any work that provides additional assurance on the effectiveness of the whistleblowing procedures?
• Are there adequate procedures to track the actions taken in relation to concerns made and ensure appropriate follow-up action has been taken to investigate and, if necessary, resolve problems indicated by whistleblowing?
• Are there adequate procedures for retaining evidence in relation to each concern?
• Have confidentiality issues been handled effectively?
• Is there evidence of timely and constructive feedback?
• Have any events come to the committee's or the board's attention that might indicate that a staff member has not been fairly treated as a result of raising concerns?
• Is a review of staff awareness of the procedures needed?
  

From: Public Concern at Work
------------------------------------------------
One wonders if there are similar guidelines for Governors of universities and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). The seven principles of public life (Nolan Committee) do apply to the governance of HEIs. There is also a guide of best practice, BUT no real accountability or policing.

OK, HEFCE, QAA, HEA... To whom are governors accountable? An answer we received not too long ago from somebody in HEFCE, suggested that governors are accountable to the other governors that elect/appoint them! Impressive.

To whom are governors really accountable?

A Golden Oldie: The Mobs of Academe - Excerpts from an online discussion

The Chronicle of Higher Education

The guest: Kenneth Westhues is a Professor of sociology at the University of Waterloo who has written a five-volume series about mobbing in academe and who frequently visits college campuses to collect data on episodes of mobbing.

'...Academe is a perfect petri dish for the culture of mobbing, according to the sociologist Kenneth Westhues, thanks to its relatively high job security, subjective measures of performance, and frequent tension between individual professors' goals and the goals of the institution. The victims of mobbing are not always wholly innocent, he says, but the campaigns against them are often based on fuzzy charges, take place in secret, happen fast, and are full of overheated rhetoric. And yet academics tend to think they are immune from the groupthink that characterizes mobbing...'

'...Mobbing is especially tragic when the target is a young scholar who has not yet had a chance to acquire credentials to fall back on. The graduate student most at risk is an independent thinker whose scholarly record (e. g., publications) threatens the supervising professors. So yes, of course, mobbing happens at all levels. My priority has been on the mobbing of professors because if professors are not secure, graduate students working with them are even less secure.

How does one heal from the humiliation of being mobbed? The general answer is, "Slowly." Support from family and friends is indispensable. Some kind of professional counselling may or may not be helpful. Healing happens above all as the mobbing target regains confidence by renewed achievements in whatever is the relevant field -- or in an altogether new field of work. It can be really, really hard for a mobbing target to "move on," but it gets easier with every day of successful negotiation of relationships at home and at work...'

'...First, encourage administrators and colleagues to inform themselves about the mobbing research (the mobbing.ca website is a rich resource, so is the book, Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace, by Noa Davenport and her colleagues in Iowa, or one can simply google "mobbing"). The more aware we make ourselves of the human tendency to mob, the more able we are to control that tendency in ourselves and others.

Specific step number two is to keep campus media for discussion and debate alive and active. A vigorous campus press helps a lot. So do chat rooms for faculty. I often quote Churchill's line, "It is always better to jaw, jaw, than to war, war." Yes, it sounds better with a British accent.

Third and probably most important, stand with mobbing targets. In most healthy, productive, well-functioning departments and faculties, one can identify individuals who do not let colleagues get mobbed. Such individuals have the guts to say at crucial moments, "Cut it out." They are what researchers call "guardians" of prospective targets. They are willing to be seen with a mobbing target and to speak up for him or her when that is a risky, unpopular thing to do...'

'...The starting point for any possibly effective action to stop or turn back a mobbing has to be a careful analysis of the structure of the mob. Who, one asks, is the instigator, the "chief eliminator"? Sometimes this is the administrator who formally leads the exclusionary action, but sometimes such an administrator is only responding to the ardent wishes of some number of colleagues. The goal, generally speaking, is to "break up" the mob, to try to take some kind of action that will get the professors to behave as independent, reasoned thinkers, as they're supposed to be, instead of like a bunch of sheep...'

Complete online discussion available at: http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2006/04/mobbing/

6th International Conference on Workplace Bullying

Call for Papers - 6th International Conference on Workplace Bullying - Sharing our Knowledge 4^th – 6t^th June 2008, École des Sciences de la Gestion, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Canada

Bullying has been a source of growing concern in contemporary organizations, and the international dimension to this conference will highlight the fact that the problem is not constrained by borders or culture. Following the highly successful conferences of Stafford (1998), Brisbane (2000), London (2002), Bergen (2004) and Dublin (2006), the 2008 conference in Montreal will seek to provide a leading edge overview of our current knowledge of bullying in the workplace.

The intersection between different research traditions, theoretical and methodological backgrounds, as well as between research and practice, are necessary conditions for the development of new ideas and theories, and we are eager to encourage such an expansion of knowledge in our conference.

We invite researchers, business and organizational representatives, labour leaders, industry representatives, lawyers, human resources, health and psychological professionals, and practitioners from all disciplines who are involved in research and/or practice on bullying at work to submit proposals for poster presentations, and papers on new research findings, prevention/intervention programs, and policies that address the problem of bullying at work. Students and junior researchers are invited to share their research as well...

Please note that the deadline for Posters and Papers is December 1, 2007

E-mail : bullying@er.uqam.ca - More info

Cheat Line - UK

Blow the whistle on cheating lab rats - By Phil Baty, Times Higher Education Supplement, 11 May 2007

Is your colleague fiddling his research data? Is your head of department too quick to "borrow" your ideas without acknowledging your input? Is your research student so eager to make her name that she is cutting corners in the laboratory? If so, you may want to consider calling the UK's first research whistleblowers' "hotline", meant to ensure that misconduct is properly investigated and the perpetrators held to account.

From May 11, the UK Research Integrity Office's new hotline - 0844 77 00 644 - will be open from 8am to 8pm, Monday to Friday. Callers will be offered practical advice, drawing on a panel of experts, on what is and is not acceptable research practice and how to take allegations of wrongdoing forward. The hotline will also advise universities.

At present, the hotline covers only misconduct in medical research and biomedical sciences, but it plans to expand into other fields soon. The UK RIO was launched last April, after a ten-year campaign, with a blistering attack on the UK's "good chaps" network and general complacency towards research fraud and misconduct.

But those hoping that a call to the integrity office will lead to an immediate investigation followed by remedial action will be sorely disappointed. The UK RIO has no regulatory or investigative powers. It merely dispenses advice on how to use universities' internal procedures and how to engage the relevant regulatory authorities, thereby placing the onus for action on the callers themselves. [A real toothless tiger...]

Whistleblowers can, of course, call The Times Higher's whistleblowers' hotline (020 7782 3298), where they can speak in complete confidence about how cases of misconduct might be brought into the public domain.

People Power

...the people have the power to redeem the work of fools...

Patti Smith

Ofsted staff report rise in workplace bullying

By Debbie Andalo - Thursday May 10, 2007 - EducationGuardian.co.uk

Bullying at the schools inspectorate Ofsted has worsened in the last two years, according to the results of an internal staff survey. Some 23% of staff admitted that they had been subjected to bullying or harassment in the 12 months up to October 2006, compared with 21% in the 2004 staff survey.

Staff complained that they had to ask permission when they went to the toilet and they were only allowed to send two internal emails a day, it was reported.

In a statement the inspectorate said it had a no bullying culture and would not tolerate it in the workplace. It said: "Clear standards of behaviour are communicated to all staff and managers and one of our values is to respect and value one another. "Since the last survey was undertaken, a new chief inspector, Christine Gilbert, has joined Ofsted and she is determined to tackle this issue."

The new-look Ofsted was created in April from four separate offices, forming a single inspectorate for services for children and young people across social care and education. The statement said that the "new organisation as a whole is determined to tackle this issue."

The results of the staff survey, which had a 71% response rate, disappointed the civil service union the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union, which represents Ofsted's administrative staff.

A union spokesman said: "Nothing has changed since the 2004 survey. There is still a feeling that this oppressive management style is still prevalent in parts of the organisation even though it has undergone a great period of change.

"Managers need to be properly trained in terms of management style and how to get the best out of people. Getting people to seek permission before they go to the toilet is not going to get the most out of people or the organisation as a whole."

Ofsted was unable to confirm staff claims that they had to seek permission to go to the toilet and were only allowed to send two internal emails a day.

Whistleblowing: Call time on fraud

'The five most dangerous words in business may be "everybody else is doing it ".' So said Warren Buffett, the billionaire businessman and philanthropist, in a memo to his top managers at Berkshire Hathaway.

And that 'everybody's doing it' is one of the top reasons that staff give for not reporting misconduct. According to research by the Institute of Business Ethics, of those employees who witnessed misconduct in their workplace, only a quarter actually reported it. The main reason staff gave for not reporting their concerns was fear of alienation from colleagues (21%), closely followed by a sense that it was none of their business (19%). Fear that their job would be jeopardised (13%) and that everybody’s doing it (12%) were not far behind.

These results show that much needs to be done if staff are to be encouraged and feel supported in voicing their concerns. Employee welfare aside, companies can gain tangible business benefits if they ensure such mechanisms are in place.

...A working environment in which it is made clear that bullying, harassment and discrimination will not be tolerated could lead to fewer pay-outs at employment tribunals. Another benefit could be that good employees are retained with increased staff morale and loyalty. But perhaps the most compelling reason is that it makes for a happier and more productive workforce if staff believe and see that a culture of mutual trust exists.

...An effective whistleblowing policy creates a culture of trust and makes business sense...

Key elements

Board-level buy in: The CEO or another senior director should set out the organisation’s commitment to its speak-up policy. This is a good place to make a statement on the support that the organisation will give to those who raise concerns in good faith.

Purpose of the policy: This explains what the speak-up policy is, and gives examples of issues where employees may have concerns.

Outline procedures: This section will set out the details of the procedures that individuals should follow when raising a concern. It should also include a statement on confidentiality and/or anonymity and encouragement for employees to speak to their colleagues, line managers or other managers if appropriate.

What next? Staff need to know what they can expect if they speak up. Here, you should describe the details of the process that the investigation will follow. Set out the principles guiding the recording and investigating of reports, such as confidentiality, protection and feedback. What can the employee expect in terms of timeframes for investigations, call backs and progress reports? It should also reiterate the company’s commitment to support the employee raising the concern.

List other supporting documents: Typically, this will include guidance for managers, guidance for staff, code of ethics, posters and desktop reminders that are available. The role of any call lines/web pages: when to use them and how they can help.

Warning of disciplinary action: This is a policy that has to be taken seriously. Outline clearly the likely outcome for malicious use of the line.
---------------------------
By Katherine Bradshaw. From: http://www.accountancyage.com/

Courage Without Martyrdom

What to expect: Classic Responses to Whistleblowing - Targeting dissenters: The tactics of retaliation

Intimidation and fear are the ultimate objectives of classical organizational reprisal techniques. The goal is to convince employees that the power of the organization is stronger than the power of individuals - even individuals who have truth on their side.

The following is a list of tactics your employer may use in the effort to silence you, fire you or harass you into resigning. They illustrate examples of how bureaucracies attempt to keep the majority silent by making examples out of troublemakers such as whistleblowers.

...The first commandement of retaliation is to make the whistleblower, instead of his or her message, the issue: obfuscate the dissent by attacking the source's motives, credibility, professional competence, or virtually anything else that will work to cloud the issue. The point of this tactic is to direct the spotlight at the whistleblower, instead of the alleged misconduct.

...A related technique is to open an investigation - and then deliberately keep it pending for an indefinite period. The idea is to leave the whistleblower 'twisting in the wind', with the cloud of an unresolved investigation hanging over his or her head.

...Employers can be creative in devising grounds for an investigation or a smear campaign against a whistleblower. Any allegation will do, no matter how petty... Some employers will display real chutzpah in selecting charges, attempting to select and make stick the most outrageous or far-fetched charges possible... [a] self-effacing individual may be branded a loud-mouth egomaniac...

From: The Whistleblower's Survival Guide

Pack of Wolves #1

The following writing is based on documents I have come to read, information collected and conversations held with my partner (Salvatore Fiore) or other individuals and is based upon my diary maintained throughout the period from July 2004 to date.

In hindsight, I recognise that the bullying and harassment my partner has endured throughout his two years of employment as a Senior Lecturer in Computing at the School of Computing and IT, University of Wolverhampton, began very early on.

Pack of Wolves #1

Following an invitation letter from Mrs Louise Millard of Personnel Services, University of Wolverhampton dated 05 July 2004, my partner was prepared for a brief introduction, two informal interviews and a presentation for level 2 students in the HCI (Human-Computer
Interaction) area, followed by a formal panel interview in the afternoon.

He was asked to go in a room with other people who had given their presentations when a man, seemingly on the verge of retirement, but with a very erect and imposing posture, entered. He had in his hands, a list of the candidates present, and stated that in the room
were "Dr XXXXX, but it could also be Dr XXXXX", the latter being the name of my partner who did not possess a doctorate and felt annoyed by the unnecessary reference.

This man then asked candidates to leave the room one by one, exiting himself with them each individually and waiting outside the door for a few seconds. After a few candidates had left, he said that he was calling out these people, not because they wouldn't proceed through the selection process and continued the process of calling other people out of the room.

At the end of the call, he told the remaining candidates (including my partner) that they would be proceeding to the final interview and that those just called out would not. This was the moment in which my partner first doubted strongly that this person, Prof. Moreton could be trusted. It was not a game it was a selection process to be carried out with the dignity that people deserve.

During the day, there was also a brief interview with Dr P Musgrove of the School of Computing and IT (who has resulted to be my partner's Line Manager) during which, my partner explicitly discussed that he wanted to consider for the post the application of PBL (problem-based learning) and the teaching pragmatism of John Dewey. In an exchange of comments, Dr Musgrove asked my partner what he would do if people wouldn't accept things of this type. My partner answered that he, of course, would need the support of other individuals in the School.

Later, in the formal interview, a panel composed of K. Bechkoum, H. Grealish, D. Wilson (of the Business School) and Prof. Moreton threw questions at my partner. During this interview, my partner had opportunity to talk of his skills and research. My partner recounted to me his dismay at a very strange remark made by D. Wilson, of the University of Wolverhampton Business School. He asked my partner if he would like to be Dean of the School. Of course, my partner then and now does not ask favours for titles or job positions; nor does he lobby or network to enhance his CV and found the comment most unwelcome, to which he answered, "you need experience to stay in that position". Wilson did not respond to this comment and the interview concluded shortly afterwards.

My partner was first in order of preference with a summary indicating him to be an "excellent candidate". The contractual paperwork was received by my partner shortly aftewards.

On 1st September 2004, my partner started his new job. He was taken around the department and then shown his new office. I saw this office with my own eyes and can witness the disgusting condition of equipment, furniture and the room in general. With the desk crammed under a sloping roof, my partner's chair was broken and unfit for use (it was impossible to rest back on the chair without ending up on the floor). The carpet and all around was filthy, as was the window that could not be seen through. Many appliances including kettles and computers had not been safety checked for years and there was even a bicycle in the room, which was shared with two other academics. The stand-alone air conditioning apparatus was non-functional.

In September/October 2004, all members of staff of the School of Computing and IT as well as some external members were in attendance when all new members of staff were literally asked to stand and present themselves.

When my partner's turn arrived, he did not stand up. It was, of course, the Dean Moreton who asked him with a gesture to stand, at which point my partner rose to present himself.

Soon afterwards, Moreton continued his show and in a rapid succession of words, pronounced two words: "Bloody Italians".

Not one person even offered my partner – obviously the Italian in the room – a glance of disapproval for this remark. Actually, upon leaving the show, he confided his dismay to a colleague who didn't even bat an eyelid and my partner feared from this early point that he was already in the hands of a mob.

Melody Boyce
Phone: 01902 765155 (UK)
Email: melodyboyce@yahoo.co.uk

You can also follow this story at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bullied_academics/

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

This is a response to the May 5 posting [see below] about the academic who was dismised for academic misconduct for using email and a blog to express criticisms toward managment and policies within their University. The posting reveals clearly why I am reticent to post details of names and persons associated with my own mobbing experience at my university on a blog. It is apparent that the mobbers and bullies peruse the Web, blogs, and discussion groups and use these postings to "get" their targets on some violation of university policy.

Where can we, the targets of bullies and mobbers, speak out against mobbing and bullying in ways that make our stories real, so we can heal, and attain some sense of justice without being targeted and attacked once more? Is that possible? Has anyone out there tried publishing their stories about mobbing in higher education in an academic journal, and been successful? I would like to know!

This blog on academic bullying and mobbing is a haven for me. It is where I can go and have my expereinces validated, feel support from people all over the world, and share. For when I share stories about being mobbed with colleagues within my own profession, they looked stunned, and appear to care, only later to treat me like I have a rare disease. Even at my union meeting, when I brought up an anti-mobbing resolution (that finally passed because there were union delegates opposed to it!), and shared my story about mobbing on my campus, I was "shunned" at lunch. Mobbed higher education faculty worldwide need solidarity, justice, and relief.

Is there a organization or conference where our stories can be told? How can we unite in a critical mass that transcends discipline, cultural and geographical borders?
------------------------
What objectively constitutes 'gross miscoduct' should be very easy to define. In fact, most universities list examples in their disciplinary procedures. You will often find that some of the descriptions on such lists allow for almost anything to be interpreted as 'gross miscoduct'. For example, 'any act or omission that amounts to the repudiation of the contract of employment' - but who decides this?

It is a sad realisation that one of the by-products of this blog is bosses snooping around, looking for 'evidence' to condemn a colleague, BUT we all know this is not the real reason AND one way or another they can find reasons for 'gross miscoduct' - if needed, the reasons can always be made up... This is the sad reality.

Of importance is also what we can do to support colleagues who decide to make their battle against workplace bullying open and well-known... If we can't go anywhere to speak freely and to support each other without the fear of repercussions, we may as well support those of us that decide to stand up. They are also fighting our battle - if we all make an effort to support them, perhaps then we can unite in a 'critical mass that transcends discipline, cultural and geographical borders'.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of expression. Before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, the right to freedom of expression was a negative one: you were free to express yourself, unless the law otherwise prevented you from doing so. With the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into English and Welsh domestic law, the right to freedom of expression is now expressly guaranteed.

However, the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 is not absolute. Interferences with the right to freedom of expression may be permitted if they are prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and are necessary in a democratic society, that is, satisfy a pressing social need. The legitimate purposes for which freedom of expression can be limited are:

• National security, territorial integrity or public safety.
• The prevention of disorder or crime.
• The protection of health or morals.
  
• The protection of the reputation or rights of others.
  
• The prevention of the disclosure of information received in confidence.
  
• For maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
  

The meaning of defamation

...There is no single comprehensive definition of what is defamatory. Various suggestions have been made before the courts, including any material which:

Is to a person’s discredit.

Tends to lower him or her in the estimation of others.

Causes him or her to be shunned or avoided.

Causes him or her to be exposed to hatred, ridicule or contempt.

For a statement to be defamatory the imputation must tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. Even if the words damage a person in the eyes of a section of society or the community, they are not defamatory unless they amount to a disparagement of the reputation in the eyes of right-thinking people generally...

Also, somewhere we read: Academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test perceived wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges.

It is a test of principles, for the individual(s), the colleagues, the friends, the union reps and the managers... If this was a test, the failure rate would be very high...