Inmates running the asylum?

Anonymous said:

What I want to know is how a University can be expected to be held accountable by HEFCE if the University's Vice-Chancellor was a HEFCE Board member, chair of the HEFCE Quality Assessment, Learning and Teaching Committee, and member of the HEFCE Widening Participation Committee? Is this yet another case of the inmates running the asylum?

Threshold

What is the threshold of a politician in government or the Higher Education Funding Council or even the hopeless union doing anything about it?

North Harris Montgomery Community College District awarded 'Divestors of People' standard

North Harris Montgomery Community College District awarded 'Divestors of People' standard. For more info check the Hall of Shame.

For more information on workplace bullying at North Harris Montgomery Community College District, please check:
http://www.zimbio.com

Kingston University awarded 'Divestors of People' standard

Kingston University awarded 'Divestors of People' standard. For more info check the Hall of Shame.

For more information on workplace bullying at Kingston University, please check:
http://sirpeterscott.com/workplacebullying.html

Failure to attend a Robby Williams tribute band may result in disciplinary proceedings

Anonymous said:

This years staff development is more bizzare than previous ones. We have been told that attendance at a Robby Williams Tribute band concert is compulsory. Failure to attend may result in disciplinary proceedings. Torture as well as bullying.

We ask: Can we please have the name of this HEI? They are a prime candidate for the 'Divestors of People' Award.

Bullying major factor in suicide

First:

Experts: workplace bullying major factor in suicide

Workplace bullying is said to have been a factor in 100 suicides in Ireland last year. Clinical Psychologist Michael Mullally, who specialises in the area, says the problem is now reaching epidemic proportions.

He has been speaking at the International Association for Suicide Prevention Conference in Kerry this afternoon. Mr Mullally said that bullying in work is affecting [in Ireland] almost 160,000 people.

From: http://www.independent.ie
---------------------------------
Then:

Suicide don under 'huge stress' in job - By Tony Tysome. Published: 15 September 2006, Times Higher Education Supplement

Universities urged to review plans to outsource support services as inquest hears of work pressures leading up to academic's death. Tony Tysome reports.

Universities were urged to bolster staff support services this week after an inquest was told that an academic committed suicide after becoming unable to cope with the pressures of her job.

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

The university had received no indication that Professor Winstanley, who was an expert in work-related stress, was suffering as a result of her workload.

The tragic news comes as many universities are considering outsourcing confidential staff counselling services, which are seen as a vital lifeline for a growing number of academics suffering acute levels of stress.

David Berger, who chairs the Association for University and College Counselling and is head of counselling at Hull University where the service for staff is about to be outsourced, warned that outsourcing could in effect leave some staff with no support or outlet for their anxieties. He said: "Although some staff may quite like it, others will find it virtually impossible to find the time to go to offices outside the university within normal working hours."

Mr Berger said there was anecdotal evidence that both work-related stress and mental ill-health were on the rise among academic staff. The AUCC is taking steps to plot the trend.

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

David Miles, Kingston's pro vice-chancellor for external affairs, told The Times Higher that the institution was preparing to review its staff support systems in the light of the tragedy.

Professor Miles said that higher education was "an area where people are expected to deliver high standards under pressured circumstances, and this is becoming increasingly so".

"There is a sense of profound shock here over Di's death. In the preceding weeks, to most people who met her she seemed to be her usual positive self," he said. "There was no indication she was suffering a level of stress that might have contributed to her death." Professor Miles said that the university offered confidential counselling to its staff through its occupational health service and that it had recently revised its stress management policy.

Evidence submitted to the recent inquest, held at West Sussex Coroner's Court, suggested that Professor Winstanley was struggling in her job, which involved some overseas travel and grappling with challenges involving computer technology.

Professor Winstanley's former husband, Nicholas Jarrett, told the inquest that work had been the main cause of his ex-wife's anxiety shortly before her death.

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

"I believe from what she said that she had inadequate administrative and technical support."

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

25 Top Workplace Bully Tactics

Workplace bullies use many methods to intimidate their targets. Based on studies of toxic workplaces, the Workplace Bullying Institute has identified 25 of the Top Workplace Bully Tactics employed by workplace bullies (see here).

1. Falsely accused someone of "errors" not actually made (71 percent).
2. Stared, glared, was nonverbally intimidating and was clearly showing hostility (68 percent).
3. Discounted the person's thoughts or feelings ("oh, that's silly") in meetings (64 percent).
4. Used the "silent treatment" to "ice out" and separate from others (64 percent).
5. Exhibited presumably uncontrollable mood swings in front of the group (61 percent).
6. Made up own rules on the fly that even she/he did not follow (61 percent).
7. Disregarded satisfactory or exemplary quality of completed work despite evidence (58 percent).
8. Harshly and constantly criticized having a different standard for the target (57 percent).
9. Started, or failed to stop, destructive rumors or gossip about the person (56 percent).
10. Encouraged people to turn against the person being tormented (55 percent).
11. Singled out and isolated one person from coworkers, either socially or physically (54 percent).
12. Publicly displayed "gross," undignified, but not illegal, behavior (53 percent).
13. Yelled, screamed, threw tantrums in front of others to humiliate a person (53 percent).
14. Stole credit for work done by others (47 percent).
15. Abused the evaluation process by lying about the person's performance (46 percent).
16. Declared target "insubordinate" for failing to follow arbitrary commands (46 percent).
17. Used confidential information about a person to humiliate privately or publicly (45 percent).
18. Retaliated against the person after a complaint was filed (45 percent).
19. Made verbal put-downs/insults based on gender, race, accent or language, disability (44 percent).
20. Assigned undesirable work as punishment (44 percent).
21. Created unrealistic demands (workload, deadlines, duties) for person singled out (44 percent).
22. Launched a baseless campaign to oust the person; effort not stopped by the employer (43 percent).
23. Encouraged the person to quit or transfer rather than to face more mistreatment (43 percent).
24. Sabotaged the person's contribution to a team goal and reward (41 percent).
25. Ensured failure of person's project by not performing required tasks, such as sign-offs, taking calls, working with collaborators (40 percent)

From: http://www.bullyeq.com/

...and the ritual continues... US

Board of Directors
North Harris Montgomery CCD
5000 Research Forest Dr.
The Woodlands, TX 77381

Ladies and Gentlemen:

For 3-1/2 years, I served as an employee of the NHMCCD (North Harris Montgomery Community College District). I was among the first Division Operations Managers (DOMs) hired within the District, and during my tenure, I believe I brought much structure and positive change to both Montgomery College and the District in general. I was instrumental in organizing the DOMs throughout the District into a professional and effective business group, developing our own training programs, peer support structures and all-District networking with the District administration. I loved my work, and most of the people I worked with on a regular basis.

I came to NHMCCD as a military retiree, and a retiree from a major Fortune 500 corporation. I hold a Bachelor’s degree in General Business Administration and a Master of Business Administration specializing in Management. In my corporate position, I directed a world-wide program for Corporate Recognition, and worked extensively in training supervisors, managers and Corporate executives in emerging styles of people management and Corporate Quality. I was a certified Senior Examiner, trained under the Malcom Baldridge Award criteria. I am currently an Adjunct Lecturer (Professor of Management) in the University of Houston system.

I only mention my background to emphasize three prime issues: (1) I am considered an expert in my field: Management, (2) I accepted the position as DOM because it was an opportunity to “make a difference” and contribute to my community – not because I needed to work, and (3) I know good management – and bad - when I see it.

I have the utmost respect for John Pickelman and your staff of Vice-Chancellors and other administrators at NHMCCD headquarters – most of whom I worked with closely in my position, and I received exceptional cooperation and support. However, I feel the District has removed itself so far from the individual campuses, that it is not aware of the unethical practices and behavior that may be occurring on a regular basis. My refusing to participate in this type of behavior, and stating so strongly, led to my eventual resignation.

I did not resign because I wanted to leave Montgomery College, but because I was forced to. For the last four months of my employment, I was subjected to continuous harassment, verbal abuse, complete disrespect, removal of my supervisory responsibilities, exclusion from District educational opportunities offered to me, and behavior uncharacteristic of an ethical supervisor. This was instigated and orchestrated by Dean Deborah Ellington, [The link connects to a page which has been removed since this posting - a photo of Dean Deborah Ellington by the Acropolis] in order to force my resignation. There was no attempt to “fire” me because no reason could be found. Dr. Tom Butler displayed a complete lack of leadership by even refusing to meet with me to discuss my situation, and VP of Instruction Julie Leidig tried to intervene but was so concerned for her own position that she was unable to effectively address the issues or the truth about what was occurring. Whatever Dean Ellington said was accepted without question. Most was fabricated or otherwise untrue.

I only stayed the additional 4 months in order to protect my Division employees, who were also being harassed by unfair practices and unfair expectations, false accusations, and pure terror - in fear for their jobs. In fact, as I was able to prove some of the allegations false, Ms. Ellington waited until I resigned before terminating one of those employees using those false accusations as a basis. By the way, that employee was one of the most dedicated, loyal and productive employees any supervisor would want to have. The District lost an exceptional person when she left.

I have spent the past 7 months investigating the supervisory background of Deborah Ellington, and I must admit I have been surprised at what I have found. Where Dean Ellington goes, chaos prevails, especially when dealing with employees and faculty. I will not go into detail, since detail should be readily available in District records. A good question to ask is WHY North Harris College wanted to get rid of her so badly? How many people were affected or lost their jobs because of her “leadership”? How many law suits and/or threats of lawsuits and/or grievances have been initiated against her at North Harris and Montgomery Colleges? Why are her actions acceptable to the Administration? Recently, I discovered that Ms. Ellington has been making false accusations against me in order to protect herself and her very poor fiscal and ethical practices, and the ensuing results. I don’t need to defend my reputation to those that know me, but I will to those that don’t. And strongly.

I have accepted my current situation, although I was just over a year from qualifying for TRS retirement. This was a major financial “hit” to me. More so, I miss my good friends, coworkers and employees at MC, DSTC and the other campuses. Yet, I CANNOT accept what has happened to so many others, and I am refusing to just “drop it” – too many others may suffer. Therefore, I am asking you, as the NHMCCD Board, to investigate this continuing situation and take some action to prevent it from happening in the future. Although you probably were not aware of it before, now you are; and I trust you will ask questions and advise me as to what investigation will be initiated and what the resolution is. You could start by asking Mr. Glen Powell about what occurred during the 4 months I was being pressured to resign, as I kept in constant contact with him until my last day of employment. There was nothing he could do but listen, and he did listen and I appreciate that. Yet, no one seems to want to challenge Ms. Ellington for her management practices.

I am prepared to release further information publicly, if necessary, within the next two weeks. It is not my intention to embarrass the District; rather, to cause some action. But, I do expect to be informed what action the District plans, and how any investigation will be handled. I have nothing to lose by going public with my information; my goal is simply to gain some satisfaction for the many current or former employees whose lives or careers have been damaged by this very unstable person, who the District has placed in such a high position. Her actions violate your own Ethics Policy (see the NHMCCD Staff Handbook), so I would hope that you do support your own written policies. I also urge that you research “workplace mobbing” and the effect is has on employees and organizations.

Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing a reply from you very shortly.

Sincerely,

Richard E. (Dick) Martin

More info at: http://www.zimbio.com/

When Bosses Go Bad -- and Get Rewarded

We've all seen it -- the bad boss who should get canned, but who gets promoted instead. The clueless, mean-spirited manager or executive who is hated more than anyone else, but who, somehow, rises higher in the ranks than anyone else.

And we wonder, is it just our company? Just our industry? Well, take heart. It happens everywhere, according to a study on bad bosses presented earlier this month at the Academy of Management's annual meeting in Philadelphia.

Asked what happened to a particularly "bad leader" they've worked for, nearly half (45 percent) of employees surveyed reported that the offending boss was promoted. Another 19 percent said nothing at all happened to the person, and only 13 percent said the bad leader was forced out of the organization.

The three researchers, from Bond University in Australia, who conducted the study said it was "remarkably disturbing" that 64 percent of the bad bosses were either rewarded with promotions or left alone.

The online survey of 240 people in the United States and Australia was part of a larger study, in which one-third of those surveyed also reported that working for these bad bosses caused them serious stress, including fatigue, insomnia and bad dreams.

While the Australian researchers may have been surprised that so many bad bosses get promoted, some who study this particular breed of office animal say the survey was right on target.

"The more incompetent someone is, the faster their career takes off," says John Hoover, author of How to Work for an Idiot: Survive and Thrive Without Killing Your Boss. Hoover notes that, in a typical organization, the path to a higher salary and perks, such as stock options, lies in getting promoted. The problem, he says, is employees and managers often get promoted out of their areas of competency -- and their comfort zones. They become incompetent, insecure, defensive -- in short, bad bosses.

"We institutionalize bad behavior because the only way people can be rewarded is to be taken out of their element," says Hoover, who is also an executive coach with Partners in Human Resources International, a New York-based HR consultancy.

When people are comfortable, they're liked by their co-workers, says Hoover. "It's when they get promoted away from it that they become gargoyles."

And it gets worse, he says. These bad bosses surround themselves with incompetent sycophants who provide camouflage and can serve as convenient "sacrificial lambs" if the boss's own incompetence causes problems, he says. When someone higher in the organizational chart leaves the company, this entire "pod of incompetence," as Hoover calls it, gets bumped up the ladder.

One might think that these bad bosses wouldn't get promoted, that smart executives up the line would see them for what they are and show them the door. But, says Hoover, "When you look down a silo, you only see the cork at the top. You don't see what's bottled up behind it."

"If the metrics are working," he says, the top executives "assume the whole organization is working like a well-oiled machine."

There are a couple of things HR can do about all this, says Hoover. One is to help redesign the organization so that people can get raises and perks without having to get promoted. "This will keep people in their competencies," he says. Another approach, he says, is for HR to try to determine in advance -- through tests and other measures -- whether a person will make a good manager.

Elaine Varelas of Keystone Partners, a career-management firm in Boston, says bad bosses are often promoted because, at many organizations, managing people is not considered as important as making money for the company.

As a manager, you're valued "if you deliver the financials, if you deliver the deals," rather than on how well you deal with people, says Varelas, who writes a regular column on talent-management issues for The Boston Globe.

Top executives might be aware a manager is a bad boss, "but they might not know what to do about it," she says. "They might be worried that if they make a change, the results they want in other areas won't be delivered."

Varelas believes the prevalence of bad bosses will become more of an issue as baby boomers leave the workforce and competition for talent heats up.

"As organizations are more concerned about retaining people, we'll see something done about these bad bosses," she says. Because such bosses generate turnover, "retaining the right people will be seen as just as much a critical success factor as delivering on other, more quantifiable results."

From: Human Resource Executive Online

Power corrupts, says workplace bullying survey

Two-thirds of UK managers believe that lack of management skills is the major factor contributing to bullying at work, according to new research. Misuse of power was listed as the most prolific type of bullying used within the workplace.

A survey by the Ban Bullying at Work campaign questioned 512 senior managers across the UK in conjunction with the Chartered Management Institute ahead of the fifth national Ban Bullying at Work day which takes place on 7th November.

The other main factors, given by managers themselves, which contribute to bullying at work included unrealistic targets (cited by 27%); authoritarian management styles (56%); personality (57%); and failure to address incidents (37%).

The survey also asked managers what they believed was the most prolific type of bullying used. Misuse of power was cited by 71% of managers while 63% cited overbearing supervision and 55% cited exclusion.

The report also looked at the reasons why organisations should tackle bullying at work. Improving low morale was the most cited answer, followed by improving productivity and reducing absenteeism.

Lyn Witheridge, chief executive of the Ban Bullying at Work Campaign, said: "We are challenging businesses to speak out against bullying to create workplaces where employees can see clearly that bullying behaviours will not be tolerated.”

Catherine Barker, an employment lawyer at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said that although there is no specific legislation making bullying at work illegal, every employer owes its staff a duty of care to make sure that its workplace is somewhere where they are not subjected to harassment.

She said: "There is also anti-discrimination legislation which will catch many instances of bullying behaviors. If, for example, a person is bullied for reasons connected to their sex, race, disability, sexual orientation, age, religion or belief, they may be able to bring a discrimination complaint to an Employment Tribunal.

"Bullying can, however, take many other forms and may be as a result of a personality clash or frustration by management regarding an individual's performance. In this situation any employee is entitled to raise a grievance and if management fails to deal with the grievance properly, this could underline trust and confidence in the employment relationship.

"When this trust and confidence is severely undermined, an employee may feel they have no option but to resign and in this situation they may have a valid constructive dismissal complaint in an Employment Tribunal."

Barker added: "The best thing businesses can do is to ensure that the workplace culture is one of respect and equality so that bullying and harassment of any description is simply not tolerated. This can be achieved by having proper anti-bullying policies in place, training managers on these policies, and dealing with any grievances properly as soon as they arise.

"But, if poor performance – by employees or management – is genuinely the issue, then this should also be properly managed, rather than allowing the problem to fester."

From: http://www.out-law.com/page-8416

Also worth reading along the same lines: LACK OF MANAGEMENT SKILLS CONTRIBUTES TO BULLYING IN THE WORKPLACE