Dignity at work

New research published by Equality Challenge Unit indicates that some [why not all?] higher education institutions are taking the need for dignity at work seriously and taking active steps to eliminate bullying and harassment. A high proportion of respondents to our survey (93%) had a specific policy on dignity at work, 70% had networks of harassment advisers and some institutions also offered additional services such as mediation, counselling, employee assistance programmes and training.

However, there is still a long way to go until the sector as a whole provides a culture where all staff are afforded dignity and treated with respect. There are still large variations in service provision, with some institutions lacking the basic structure of policies to tackle these issues, or lacking training programmes to support initiatives.

A particular weakness identified in the study was that the majority of institutions failed to evaluate the effectiveness of initiatives. Even where basic monitoring was being undertaken, it was rare for institutions to review regularly the impact of policies and practices. Some institutions identified that issues relating to bullying and harassment had been raised through their staff survey, but relatively few had made commitments to conduct regular surveys to monitor or evaluate progress made in tackling these problems.

In the ECU baseline survey, although 92% of respondents said that they regarded dignity at work as either a priority or an important issue, 56% also believed that cases were under-reported within their own institution.

The conclusion of Equality Challenge Unit’s Dignity at Work Project was that there are positive signs that some institutions are making real efforts to tackle bullying and harassment. This is particularly important in light of recent high profile cases which underline the importance of employers needing to be alert and proactive in tackling bullying and harassment issues...
.............................
National Ban Bullying at Work Day. 7th November 2007. This is a stand alone campaign, spear-headed by The Andrea Adams Trust.

Look at the culture of your organisation

It's important to make sure that your business, through its culture and management team, is not cultivating an environment where bullying can flourish.

Experts agree that bullying thrives where it is common behaviour across the management team. This can be particularly common in highly competitive environments, where managers may see bullying as the accepted method of motivating staff. [Or as a method/tactic to disguise their incompetence]

If you're seeing multiple cases of bullying in your business, you need to look carefully at management styles. A lack of respect and poor management skills are often a central theme in environments where bullying is common.

Look out for the following traits in management and tackle them [Tackle them? Self-policing does not work in universities]:

• An authoritarian style of management.
• Failure to address previous incidences of bullying.
• Unrealistic targets or deadlines.
• Inappropriate performance management systems.
  

From: http://www.yourpeoplemanager.com/

Unkindly Art of Mobbing in Academia

Twenty years ago, Swedish psychologist Heinz Leymann gave the name “mobbing” to this terror, taking the word from Konrad Lorenz’s research on aggression in non-human species. Mobbing of alien predators and sometimes of members of the same species occurs among many birds and primates. Something about the target arouses a fierce, contagious impulse to attack and destroy. Mobbers take turns vocalizing hostility and inflicting wounds. The target usually flees. Sometimes it is killed and eaten.

Violent mobbing is endemic to our species. Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson has analyzed lynching as a cannibalistic “ritual of blood.” Teenage swarming is similar, as in the murder of Reena Virk in Victoria, B.C., in 1997. Her friends set upon her in a frenzy of bloodlust, reviled and tortured her, and eventually held her head under water until she was dead.

Leymann studied the nonviolent, polite, sophisticated kind of mobbing that happens in ostensibly rational workplaces. Universities are an archetype. If professors despise a colleague to the point of feeling a desperate need to put the colleague down, pummeling the target is a foolish move. The mobbers lose and the target gains credibility. The more clever and effective strategy is to wear the target down emotionally by shunning, gossip, ridicule, bureaucratic hassles, and withholding of deserved rewards...

Mobbers seize upon a critical incident, some real or imagined misbehaviour they claim is proof of the target’s unworthiness to continue in the normal give-and-take of academic life. A degradation ritual is arranged, often in a dean’s office, sometimes in a campus tribunal. The object is to destroy the good name that is any professor’s main resource and to expose the target as not worth listening to. Public censure by the university administration leaves the target stigmatized for life.

Formal dismissal with attendant publicity is social elimination in its most conclusive form. In its more advanced stages, mobbing is rare. Leymann estimated that fewer than five per cent of ordinary workers are mobbed during their careers. The percentage among professors may be a little higher. In his comprehensive book on academic freedom, York University historian Michiel Horn recounts some famous cases from Canada’s past of what would today be called mobbing. Biochemist George Hunter’s firing from the University of Alberta in 1949 is one example. Historian Harry Crowe’s ouster from United College in Winnipeg in 1958 is another.

My own research has been on recent mobbings in academe. About two dozen of the 100 or so cases I have analyzed are from Canadian universities. Because McGill University closed down its inquiry into her death, the 1994 case of Justine Sergent is especially noteworthy. She was a successful neuropsychologist, whose adversaries positioned her on the wrong side of the local research ethics board. Sergent received a formal reprimand and grieved it. The Montreal Gazette learned of the dispute from an anonymous letter and ran with the story. “McGill researcher disciplined for breaking rules,” the headline read. The humiliation was more than Sergent could bear. She and her husband, Yves, wrote poignant letters the next day and then committed suicide...

At a practical level, every professor should be aware of conditions that increase vulnerability to mobbing in academe. Here are five:

• Foreign birth and upbringing, especially as signaled by a foreign accent
• Being different from most colleagues in an elemental way (by sex, for instance, sexual orientation, skin color, ethnicity, class origin, or credentials)
• Belonging to a discipline with ambiguous standards and objectives, especially those (like music or literature) most affected by post-modern scholarship
• Working under a dean or other administrator in whom, as Nietzsche put it, “the impulse to punish is powerful”
• An actual or contrived financial crunch in one’s academic unit (According to an African proverb, when the watering hole gets smaller, the animals get meaner)

Other conditions that heighten the risk of being mobbed are more directly under a prospective target’s control. Five major ones are:

• Having opposed the candidate who ends up winning appointment as one’s dean or chair (thereby looking stupid, wicked, or crazy in the latter’s eyes)
• Being a rate buster—achieving so much success in teaching or research that colleagues’ envy is aroused
• Publicly dissenting from politically correct ideas (meaning those held sacred by campus elites)
• Defending a pariah in campus politics or the larger cultural arena
• Blowing the whistle on, or even having knowledge of serious wrongdoing by, locally powerful workmates The upshot of available research is that no professor needs to worry much about being mobbed, even when in a generally vulnerable condition, so long as he or she does not rock the local academic boat.

The secret is to show deference to colleagues and administrators—to be the kind of scholar they want to keep around as a way of making themselves look good. Jung said that “a man’s hatred is always concentrated on that which makes him conscious of his bad qualities.”

By Ken Westhues, a professor of sociology at the University of Waterloo. His books on mobbing include Eliminating Professors (1998), The Envy of Excellence (2005), and The Remedy and Prevention of Mobbing in Higher Education (2006). For web resources on academic mobbing, either google his name, or go to mobbing.ca.

Former polytechnics spread their wings

Fifteen years after John Major turned polys into 'new universities', the diversity that grew out of that change is breeding success. Tony Tysome, who reported on the reforms at the time, takes stock.

It has been described as both the best and the worst thing to happen to British higher education. Though some still criticise the decision to allow the former polytechnics to become "new" universities 15 years ago, most now generally accept that it was the right move and that it has helped the sector respond to 21st-century challenges...

Neil Williamson is a member of the University and College Union national executive who has witnessed rapid changes at De Montfort University, where he has been a lecturer since it dropped the title of Leicester Polytechnic. He said the impact on staff has inevitably been higher workloads and more work related stress.

"This has not been helped by the fact that the new universities have tended to adopt a more managerial approach to governance than the old universities, and there have been some glaring examples of bad practice."

From: Times Higher Education Supplement
...........................

Much more can be said about the management and leadership of some of the ex-polytechnics beyond 'some glaring examples of bad practice'. In some cases, managers became 'professors' without the expertise, knowledge and will to demonstrate management and academic leadership. In some ex-polytechnics staff are managed by 'professors' too busy in promoting their ego than caring about workplace welfare.

The new playground for some of these 'professors' is indeed the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (now Universities UK). We are all 'principals' and 'vice-chancellors' now...

'Higher workloads and more work related stress' are often associated with hierarchical structures that lack accountability, transparency and good staff-management relations. Some older universities may not be exempt from this criticism, but certainly some ex-polytechnics are prime examples of poor staff-management relations.

Do you have a dysfunctional workplace?

Does your boss act out and throw tantrums like a spoiled child? Does your company ship most of its product the last 24 hours of the quarter? Are you afraid to bring up certain hot-button issues in meetings for fear of being humiliated? Do you spend more time covering your ass than you do sitting on it? Is your company in a perpetual state of limbo because nobody can make a decision? Does your company's mission statement change weekly?

These are all signs of a dysfunctional workplace. But don't fret; you're not alone. In fact, an entire lexicon has grown up around dysfunctional corporate behavior. See if you can recognize some of the issues that drive you and your co-workers nuts in these definitions:

Analysis paralysis. Chronic debating that obstructs the decision making process. Often a systemic problem within a company and a symptom of dysfunctional leadership, processes, and pretty much everything else. Also see disruptive management style.

Breathing your own fumes. When executives actually start to believe and make decisions based on the spin-doctored bulls--t they consistently spew out to the media, analysts, investors, customers and employees.

Blowing smoke up someone's ass. Feeding an insincere compliment or bulls--t to someone who should know better but hasn't been around long enough to develop a healthy, cynical filter against that sort of thing. Not to be confused with having your head stuck up someone's ass.

Committing political suicide. Pissing off or going toe-to-toe with your dysfunctional boss, some other self-important executive, or someone one of those people mistakenly trusts more than they trust you. AKA a career ending move.

CYA. Means cover your ass. It's what weak, small-minded people do when they should be doing the right thing instead.

Disruptive management style. Euphemism for an executive who chronically swoops into meetings and makes wild, half-assed decisions based on limited data. Also, an executive prone to mucking with processes and projects and making everyone affected want to strangle him. Can cause strategy or roadmap du jour and analysis paralysis.

Don't s--t where you eat. I think everybody knows this one...except maybe Bill Clinton.

End of quarter panic. The last week of the quarter when everybody--especially sales--wakes up and actually does their job. Usually results in pulling an all-nighter on the last day, followed by 12 weeks of partying.

Going down a rathole. When two or more people get into a non-productive fight or argument over a hot topic where neither side will give in. Often occurs when one pushes another's buttons and can involve emotional outbursts, acting out, cursing and name-calling. See take it offline--the only cure.

Hallway meeting. This is when managers make decisions, in the hallway or in an office or cubicle, they shouldn't be making. The manager who is supposed to be making these decisions is typically missing from hallway meetings. Often the result of passive aggressive behavior and results in strategy or roadmap du jour.

Ivory tower mentality. When senior officers cut themselves off from employees, investors, and customers, typically by adding protective layers of superfluous executives, secretaries, voice mail systems, and outer offices. Caused by a deep fear of confronting their own issues, not because they think they're better than you.

Moral flexibility. I first heard this expression in the movie Grosse Pointe Blank where John Cusack's character is an assassin possessing a certain moral flexibility. Same thing with executives that possess this quality, except the fallout leads to fraud, scandal, and shareholders losing their savings, not their lives.

Passive aggressive behavior. When somebody agrees to a plan against his wishes--typically in a meeting with everyone present--and then goes off and does what he wanted to do in the first place, usually without telling anybody. Similar to an end around, can also be related to back stabbing.

Sacred cow. A project that's immune to the company's typical processes - like operating plans, phase reviews and budgeting--because it's a self-important executive's pet project. Not to be confused with a sacred animal you're not supposed to eat or wear, although drinking its milk is apparently okay.

Silo mentality. When people focus solely on themselves, their department, their division, whatever, to the detriment of the broader organization. Similar to bunker mentality, which is defensive behavior to protect a project or organization that should have been killed long ago.

Strategy du jour. When dysfunctional executives consistently overreact to a single data point or hallway meeting and take the entire organization in a new direction instead of sticking with "the plan." A serious problem that often results in spiraling morale, efficiency and operating performance. AKA roadmap du jour. Not to be confused with a common secondary symptom--reorg du jour.

Take it offline. What you do when one or more people get completely off-track or off-topic in a meeting, sometimes going down a rathole. Also, what you tell two people who are getting into an embarrassing display of childish emotion in what's supposed to be a civilized work environment.

Title inflation. When most of a company's employees are VPs who are not qualified to sweep a normal company's floors.

From: http://www.cnet.com

Why manners matter

You might think that standards of manners and behaviour at work are on the decline, but according to a new survey, good manners are critical if you want to move up the career ladder.

In fact, an overwhelming 95 percent of senior executives and managers surveyed by NFI research feel that good manners matter when it comes to advancing a person's career, with two thirds saying good manners are extremely important.

Nine out of 10 also said that their workplaces are normally well-mannered places, with nearly four out of 10 claiming that good manners are always practiced.

"This makes it clear that people should watch their manners at work if they are looking to get ahead," NFI Research CEO Chuck Martin said.

That's even more true of smaller businesses than large ones. Seven out of 10 executives in small businesses said that good manners were important in advancing a person's career compared to just over half (55 percent) of those in large organizations.

"Good manners are essential, not only in one's personal life but professionally, as well," one survey respondent said. "It is imperative that one get along with his co-workers, and good manners are the main ingredient."

Meanwhile, academic research has found that good manners in the workplace are more than just a nice-to-have.

Dr Barbara Griffin, from the University of Western Sydney in Australia, has found that colleagues or mangers who are rude and undermining can have a demonstrable negative impact on employee engagement and productivity.

She also found that one in five employees experience a significant incident of bad manners at work once a month.

"Rude and undermining colleagues are those who question your judgement, exclude you from situations, interrupt when you are speaking, make derogatory comments, withhold information or belittle your ideas," said Dr Griffin, an organisational psychologist.

"This type of behaviour is more subtle and diffuse than outright bullying", she added, "but it still has a large impact on employee engagement, including whether you stay in an organisation, speak positively about your job or go that extra mile. It can also cause psychological distress and poor physical health.

"Even the occasional rude comment is enough to lower engagement and make you feel less committed to your job."

From: http://www.management-issues.com

Leeds Metropolitan University & Robbie Williams tribute band

Failure to attend a Robbie 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.

From Leeds Metropolitan University Staff Development Festival 2007:

The Staff Development Festival 2007 will be holding the Finale at the new addition to Leeds Metropolitan University - the Headingley Carnegie Stadium. The evening will consist of a gymnast display, a Robbie Williams tribute band, a choir of 100 voices and much more.

Now then, is attendance compulsory and how does one guarantee numbers?

Increasing numbers of Employment Tribunal claims - UK

The Tribunals Service annual report shows that the Employment Tribunals' workload in 2006-07 was around 137,000 cases compared to 127,000 in 2005-06. This represents an annual increase of nearly 8%

Possible reasons for the increase

A widely held view is that the statutory dispute resolution procedures introduced in 2004 are at fault. The EEF, an industry body for engineering and manufacturing employers, puts it down to, "parties becoming more familiar with the rules" and "pre-application procedures not having the desired effect of cutting down claim numbers".

Many commentators have taken the view that, owing to both the vagueness of the procedures themselves, and the complexity of the regulations governing when they will or will not apply, the legislation makes it more, not less likely that a dispute may escalate to a tribunal hearing.

This is something that has been recognised by Government and in December 2006, it launched a root and branch review of Government support for resolving disputes in the workplace. It appointed Michael Gibbons, a member of the Ministerial Challenge Panel, to review the options for simplifying and improving all aspects of employment dispute resolution.

The Gibbons Review called for a radical overhaul of the current approach to resolving workplace disputes including repealing the statutory dispute resolution procedures. The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (formerly the DTI) has stated that it is committed to piloting any new approach to dispute resolution and the recommendations made in the Gibbons Review are now the subject of a consultation paper. We, through the Employment Lawyers' Association, have given feedback on our experience of how the procedures have operated in practice.

One area, which in our experience is causing an increasing number of claims, is related to bullying and harassment.

Bullying and harassment

ACAS describe these terms as interchangeable with many definitions including bullying as a form of harassment. Further, they state that:

* harassment, in general terms is, unwanted conduct affecting the dignity of men and women in the workplace. It may be related to age, sex, race, disability, religion, nationality or any personal characteristic of the individual, and may be persistent or an isolated incident. The key is that the actions or comments are viewed as demeaning and unacceptable to the recipient; and

* bullying may be characterised as offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means intended to undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient. Bullying does not include legitimate and constructive criticism of a worker's performance or behaviour or reasonable requests made of workers.

Clearly, everyone should be treated with dignity and respect at work, but why do employers need to take action on bullying and harassment? Not only are they unacceptable on moral grounds but, may create, poor morale and employee relations, loss of respect for managers and supervisors, lead to poor performance and productivity, high absence and damage to company reputation.

Bullying and harassment can result in tribunal and other court cases against the company with the potential for payment of unlimited compensation. It is, therefore, in every employer's interests to promote a safe, healthy and fair environment in which people can work.

It is not possible to make a direct complaint to an employment tribunal about bullying. However, employees might be able to bring complaints under laws covering discrimination and harassment on one or more of the following grounds:

* sex;
* race;
* disability;
* sexual orientation;
* religion or belief; and
* age.

Handling bullying and harassment

ACAS outline the following 5 step guide for dealing with bullying and harassment in the workplace:

1. develop and implement a formal policy;
2. set a good example;
3. maintain fair procedures for dealing promptly with complaints from employees;
4. set standards of behaviour; and
5. let employees know that complaints of bullying and/or harassment, or information from staff relating to such complaints, will be dealt with fairly and confidentially and sensitively.

It is important that any complaints raised or information received about bullying and/or harassment are taken seriously and investigated promptly. Whilst ACAS suggest that some complaints may be dealt with informally, employers need to be wary of giving out the wrong message about how seriously the complaint is being taken if this approach is taken.

Depending on the outcome of the investigations into the bullying/harassment complaint, it may be that the use of counselling will help. Counselling can be particularly useful where the investigation shows no cause for disciplinary action, or where doubt is cast on the validity of the complaint. Counselling may resolve the issue or help support the person accused as well as the complainant.

However, the employer may decide that the matter is a disciplinary issue that needs to be dealt with at the appropriate level of the organisation's disciplinary procedure. As with any disciplinary problem it is important to follow a fair procedure. In the case of a complaint of bullying or harassment there must be fairness to both the complainant and the person accused.

There may be cases where somebody makes an unfounded allegation of bullying and/or harassment for malicious reasons. These cases should also be investigated and dealt with fairly and objectively under the disciplinary procedure.

In cases which appear to involve serious misconduct, and there is reason to separate the parties, a short period of suspension with pay of the alleged bully/ harasser may need to be considered while the case is being investigated. If then, the employer is contemplating dismissing an employee, the statutory procedures must be followed.

Conclusions

Whilst the number of claims being handled by the employment tribunals is on the increase, the underlying reasons for this are by no means certain. However, our experience shows that issues of bullying and harassment in the workplace are one area that is on the increase.

The ACAS 5 point plan is a useful guide for employers to ensure that they have the necessary policies and systems in place for handling complaints of bullying and harassment.

From: http://www.workplacelaw.net/
------------------------
The problem of course with the ACAS 5 point plan is that managers do not set a good example, they do not always maintain fair procedures for dealing promptly with complaints, they do not set standards of behaviour, and complaints are not always dealt with fairly, confidentially and sensitively.

In the context of higher education, self-policing and self-regulation have simply failed. Could this be one more reason why the victims/targets have no faith in the selective application of statutory dispute resolution procedures, and resort to Employment Tribunals? What exactly is a victim/target meant to do?

Do we have any statistics breaking it down to different industries and professions, on how many Employment Tribunals could have been avoided if the statutory dispute resolution procedures were followed properly? Who is the biggest offender? Now that would be an eye-opener!

We want to know what onus - and if necesary compulsion - the Gibbons Review will place on employers to resolve disputes in a fair and transparent process.

Fat words...

We came across a document titled 'Equality & Diversity' put together by The Association of University Administrators (AUA), the Higher Education Equal Opportunities Network (HEEON) and the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU).

We quote:

'Bullying can be defined as offensive behaviour which violates a person's dignity, or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment, or which humiliates or undermines an individual or group. Such behaviour can be vindictive, cruel or malicious.

Bullying is generally considered to be a form of harassment that is not directly related to discrimination. For example, the law explicitly covers sexual and racial harassment but at present does not explicitly cover bullying. Bullying can cause stress and employers may fail in their duty of care to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of employees, if they do not take steps to prevent it. Most HEIs now have policies, guidelines and codes of practice covering bullying.

Bullying can take various forms, from name calling, sarcasm, teasing, and unwarranted criticism, to threats of violence or actual physical violence. The Health and Safety Executive estimates that bullying costs employers up to 80 million working days a year in lost productivity and over £2 billion a year in lost revenue, Bullying can also cause low morale and produce a high turnover of staff.'

And:

'Dignity is the human quality of being worthy of esteem or respect. Dignity at work refers to a set of principles, values and practices which ensures that all individuals are able to maintain their self-esteem and work in an environment free from all types of harassment and bullying.'

Dear AUA, HEEON and ECU,

We are all aware that most HEIs now have policies, guidelines and codes of practice covering bullying. The question is what happens when management are doing the bullying and then investigate themselves? Fact: Self-regulation does not work and the only recourse for the victims/targets is to suffer, lose their jobs and if they have the energy and money to pursue their case through the courts. Is this satisfactory?

So dear Dear AUA, HEEON and ECU, thank you for your lovely definitions. Now tell us how you will hold accountable the offenders. The landscape is littered with good academics suffering. Your definitions are just that, definitions and fat words, meaningless unless there is some action. Stop killing forests with lovely booklets and prospectuses - get beyond your fat words and save the taxpayer some real money.

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?