The Institute of Education - University of London, is awarded 'Divestors of People' standard

The Institute of Education - University of London, is awarded 'Divestors of People' standard. For more info check the Hall of Shame.

Some of the criteria the Institute meets, are: Staff are demorilised, de-skilled or demoted. The working environment is toxic. The working environment shows high levels of work-related stress. Staff report high levels of bullying and harassment by managers. Fear prevails among the silent majority.

Do you see the problem?

The 2004 Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies, produced by the Committee of University Chairmen, states that:

The Visitor

Most pre-1992 HEIs have a Visitor. The office is usually referred to specifically in the charter and statutes, stipulating who is to hold the office, but if the charter and statutes are silent, then the Visitor is the Crown. The Crown has various legal manifestations (such as the Queen in Council, the Sovereign acting through the Lord President of the Council, or simply the Queen), and the procedures to be adopted will vary with the formulation. Other Visitors may, for example, be judicial or ecclesiastical office holders.

The role of the Visitor is now restricted largely to carrying the ultimate responsibility for determining the institution's internal legislative provisions, i.e. the charter and statutes. The jurisdiction of the Visitor is laid down by common law and by Act of Parliament. The jurisdiction no longer extends to employment matters; but where there is jurisdiction it is exclusive, that is the ordinary courts have nojurisdiction (except by way of judicial review if the Visitor acts unlawfully). The jurisdiction of the Visitor in respect of determining complaints from students and other members of the HEI (excluding those relating to employment matters) was removed formally in the Higher Education Act 2004. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) has been granted authority to act in this respect. These arrangements also apply to the post-1992 HEIs, subject to the final approval of the governing body.
-------
The question: OK so the Visitor is replaced by The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) for Higher Education. However, when one visits the web page for the OIA it only describes how students can complain and not staff. Everybody knows this.

A phone call to Universities UK confirmed that post 1992 HEIs only have in place their own internal procedures and no independent external review body or mechanism such as the Visitor. Do you see the problem?

Henry Kessinger

Anonymous said...

A head of division at a less than reputable welsh university wrote the following about an Arab member of staff;

"There is not enough body armour on e-bay!" The head of division then signs as "Henry Kessinger".

An example of what one can obtain via a subject access request.

Anonymous said...

That head of division is Malcom Thomas.

Exploits of a Welsh UCU officer

Anonymous said:

Exploits of a Welsh UCU officer, whom I contacted for 'help', 'support', and 'advice'.

After submitting my resignation due to repeated violations of my rights at work, this Welsh UCU officer sent an e-mail to the head of the human resources raising doubts about the quality of the work that I was to deliver in the remaining period of my employment "Can we guarantee that the work that he will submit will be as good as...? " Note how the Welsh UCU officer refers to himself and the HR manager by "We".

In another email, he discloses confidential information about my complaint to an external organisation. He tells the head of human resources in a surprised tone, "he already contacted someone external!" and "the last thing we want is another race discrimination case in the press".

Is there a possibility of closing the Welsh UCU offices or of preventing UCU from scamming members again.

The University of London is awarded 'Divestors of People' standard

The University of London is awarded 'Divestors of People' standard. For more info check the Hall of Shame.

Information on workplace bullying at University of London is at this stage confidential due to pending action and reaction... but the award is well-deserved. Despite a stated zero tolerance policy towards workplace bullying, the latter is well-entrenched across a number of departments and is exercised by a number of senior personnel.

Dealing With Bullies

...Some difficult people are merely minor irritants: Others learn to avoid them as much as possible, and the overall working environment is not badly compromised. But a person who targets others, makes threats (direct or indirect), insists on his or her own way all the time, or has such a hair-trigger temper that colleagues walk on eggshells to avoid setting it off, can paralyze a department. In the worst cases, this conduct can create massive dysfunction as the department finds itself unable to hold meetings, make hiring decisions, recruit new members, or retain valued ones. When I first got involved in helping department heads cope with such people, my colleagues and I used concepts and approaches we gleaned from studies of bullies.

The bullies I have encountered in the academic environment come in many forms, from those who present themselves as victims, all the way to classic aggressors who rely on physical intimidation. In academe and other settings populated by “knowledge workers,” one often encounters other kinds of bullies as well, including “memo bullies” (who send regular missives to a long mailing list) and “insult bullies” (destructive verbal aggressors).

Whatever their approaches, bullies are people who are willing to cross the boundaries of civilized behavior that inhibit others. They value the rewards brought by aggression and generally lack guilt, believing their victims provoked the attacks and deserve the consequences. Their behavior prompts others to avoid them, which means that, in the workplace, bullies are likely to become effectively unsupervised. I’ve seen secretaries, faculty members, and businesspeople who were so unpleasant to deal with that they were neither given the same duties as others in their environment nor held accountable for the duties they did hold.

Aggressor bullies fit the usual idea of a bully: They threaten to beat you up if you don’t give them your lunch money. Victim bullies, in contrast, demand your lunch money because of some harm they claim you’ve done to them.

While many workplaces have bullies, institutions of higher education may be especially vulnerable to them because of some of the distinctive characteristics of academe. First, bullies flourish in the decentralized structure of universities: the isolation of so many microclimates, from laboratories to small departments, creates many opportunities for a bully to run roughshod over colleagues. Then too, the bullies of academe typically manipulate the concepts of academic freedom and collegiality with flair. The propensity of bullies to misuse these central academic concepts only adds to the importance of being well grounded in those concepts yourself. If you have a firm understanding of what academic freedom is and what it is not, you’ll be better prepared to cope with those who try to distort the concept for their own ends.

Another reason people in academe are generally unprepared to deal with bullies is that bullies are relatively rare. They are what is known as “low-incidence, high-severity” problems: one in which the problems don’t arise very often, but when they do they are so serious that they can threaten the integrity of the environment.

For prevention of bullying, creating and maintaining an environment in which respectful professional interactions are expected and reinforced is the most powerful approach.

When unprofessional or uncivil conduct occurs in the work-place, it’s important to nip it in the bud. The tone of your response should be nonconfrontational: “Oh, I’m sorry, maybe we forgot to tell you that we don’t act that way here.” Dealing with the problem head-on and promptly is critical. If someone is verbally abusive to staff or threatens physical violence, the appropriate penalty must be imposed. Any other response only erodes the trust of those who work hard to do the right thing. Similarly, ignoring or tolerating inappropriate conduct in the workplace sends the message that the way to prosper is to misbehave...

By C.K. Gunsalus, from: http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/11/30/gunsalus

The Peter Principle in Academe

Think about it. Many in higher education administration are failed scholars. They were once attracted to the scholarly life, went to graduate school for 10 or 12 years, eked out dissertations, and then either failed to write enough — or at all — in tenure-track jobs; or as adjunct instructors, decided to get off the migrant worker bus. In either case they got out of the scholarship business. Some landed in pleasant occupations. Others were not so lucky.

Those who leave faculty appointments to write mystery novels, travelogues, self-help books, and biographies are usually not seen again in the academy. Some make a lot of money, and some, very little. But they all own themselves, and although the work is hard, they can sleep late in the morning. They are not promoted, and when they fail, they only make their families, cashiers, and waiters miserable. Still they disappear without a trace like everyone else.

On the other hand, those who go into academic associations, government, or, as in our case, academic administration, choosing steady income and health and retirement benefits, either gather moss in middle management jobs, or rise to higher levels of the administrative ladder — directorships, deanships, vice presidencies, presidencies, etc. In all sectors of the economy, as the Peter Principle describes, administrators typically rise to their levels of incompetence, and then fail — quietly usually, but sometimes in magnificent blazes of failure.

As you read this, academic administrator, you may be rising, stagnating, or failing in your career. Whichever stage you are in, if you are an executive academic administrator, you probably are reporting to someone who is in the process of failing. (This corresponds to the existential truism that everyone alive is dying.) If your boss is in the terminal stages of failure, and s/he is after your hide, your life may seem to you to be unbearable. It should not be, for there are ways of understanding your situation and your boss’s situation that can give you a more serene and humane outlook on the pain your supervisor is inflicting on you, as well as a glimpse at your own future.

I offer words of enlightenment, which, I hope, will help you safeguard your heart and your job, no matter how temporarily.

1. Do not ever criticize an administrator in free fall — not behind his back, and not to his/her face. Criticizing a failing leader is like baiting a wounded bear. There is more viciousness and still plenty of bite in a college administrator who has risen too high in the chain of command. If you vent your frustrations, you can get seriously hurt. And don’t worry about losing a chance to dissociate yourself from her/his failure. Worse for your career and character is disloyalty. Besides, it is not nice to kick someone when s/he is down.

2. Try instead to help your boss — unobtrusively, invisibly if possible. Take on his/her tasks that are not getting done — casually, as if you were seeking a favor. Perhaps suggest to him/her that you need more to do. Tell him/her that you have for a long time been wanting to learn the college’s billing system and serve on the Web policy committee.

3. Make sure that you do not advertise your helpfulness. No amount of self-aggrandizing is allowable. Advertising one’s kindness is bad form and can lead faster to failure.

4. Be patient. Overcome your frustrations and hurt self-esteem. (A hurt ego is inevitable when working for a failing administrator.) The gratuitous insults, unfair criticisms, and damning performance reviews will not hurt you if you are long-suffering. The insults to your reputation will probably not be taken seriously by anyone with say-so about your professional future. Practicing patience and equanimity will prepare you for the time when you rise to your own level of incompetence.

5. Don’t quit your job. If you quit now, you will be missing great opportunities when the incompetent boss realizes s/he is in the wrong job. You who have toiled so unobtrusively and so loyally as assistant vice provost, you may be able to step into her/his job — God help you.

6. Help your boss limp away and reestablish her/himself in a new position to which s/he is better suited. As you know very well, university programs are, like the universe, infinitely expanding. There is always another job. Besides, helping the hurt and injured is the right thing to do. You will be rewarded in your next life.

7. Prepare those whom you supervise to be kind and understanding when you are in your own final descent. Don’t call them back to the office when they are out to lunch or on the weekends. Let them be sick when they are well. Allow for many dying relations and friends. Reflect on the circle of administration, and try to see the good in it. It is a good way to learn humility.

8. Don’t despair when you hit bottom. It is your turn.

By Margaret Gutman Klosko, from
http://www.insidehighered.com/workplace/2005/09/21/klosko
------------------------------
Of some interest is also the 'Dilbert Principle', i.e. '...refers to a 1990s satirical observation stating that companies tend to systematically promote their least-competent employees to management, in order to limit the amount of damage that they're capable of doing...'

Conducting Investigations

The way in which any investigation is conducted will be a key element in the success of your dignity at work strategy – there is no point in introducing a comprehensive policy, training a network of harassment advisers and communicating widely and successfully if you do not have good, fair and transparent procedures for conducting investigations into complaints.

Such investigations are very sensitive and there should be procedures separate from your normal disciplinary and grievance procedures to investigate such complaints, using people who have had specific training in investigating bullying and harassment complaints.

You should bear in mind that many complainants and witnesses will be fearful not simply about the outcome but about any repercussions of making the complaint in the first place and they should be reassured that the institution will protect them and make every effort to deal effectively with the aftermath and minimise trauma after the investigation has taken place and the outcome is known.

Therefore you should consider:

• Providing compulsory training for investigators and panel members;

• Ensuring that the investigation is conducted by two people, to gain the maximum benefit from the interviews. If you have investigators who are relatively new, try to team them with someone who has a lot of experience.

• Dealing with complaints in a sensitive, objective manner, respecting the rights of all parties involved;

• Keeping all the participants, including the witnesses, well briefed about the process and ensure that everyone involved is aware of how the findings will be communicated. Ensure that both the accused and the complainant are aware of what information they will receive at the conclusion of the investigation.

• Maintaining confidentiality – this is particularly important in a small institution, where the parties are likely to be well known to many other employees;

• Ensuring that complainants and witnesses are fully protected from victimisation. It is not sufficient to state in your policy that those concerned will be protected – you must have robust systems in place to ensure that this actually happens in the event of an allegation of bullying or harassment.

• Using open questions to elicit the facts of the case and ensure that all questions are as neutral as possible. In particular, try to avoid questions that appear to allocate blame, which will make the respondent overly defensive and will obscure the facts.

• Concluding the proceedings within a reasonable timescale;

• Making every effort to ensure, if possible, that the investigatory team and the panel are balanced in terms of race, gender, etc (this is particularly important in cases where sexual/racial harassment are at issue). Members of the Investigatory team and panels should also include staff from all levels of the institution and represent both support and academic staff.

From: A Good Practice Guide for Higher Education Institutions on Dealing with Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace

Bully for you! (But be prepared for the costs)

In the movie The Devil Wears Prada, Meryl Streep is the boss from an especially glamorous circle of hell, but while the flick is fiction, Ms. Streep’s prima donna depiction is all too often reality in the U.S. workplace.

The tolerance of workplace bullies, however, is being questioned because the costs associated with bullying could well outweigh any perceived benefits.

Tony Fasulo, a managing partner at Acclaim Ability Management, which manages worker compensation and disability cases for employers, said his company tracked the costs associated with bullying for one large employer and found it easily spent over $1 million in a two-year period to cover short-term disability costs related to bullying.

And that’s just one area where the tab can add up. There’s also the cost of high turnover and lost productivity, as well as increased health-care and recruitment expenses.

“Bullies are often seen as stars, but companies have to question other costs and whether the costs outweigh the gains that the person is bringing in,” said John A. Challenger, CEO of executive recruiter Challenger Gray & Christmas.

Few people question that bullying runs rampant in the American workplace. According to a nationwide poll by the Employment Law Alliance, 44% of American workers report they have toiled for an abusive supervisor or employer. And more than half of workers say they have been the victim of (or heard about) supervisors or employers behaving abusively. The bad behavior ranged from yelling at subordinates or rudely interrupting them to making sarcastic jokes or teasing remarks to giving them dirty looks or ignoring them as if they were invisible.

The problem is compounded by a lack of management training, said Mr. Challenger. “People who are high performers are put into management roles, but their ability to manage subordinates is questionable,” he said, “and instead of explaining why things need to be done, they tend to order and push people around with no explanation.”

While the perception of bullying may depend on an individual’s sensitivity, Gary Namie, director of a Bellingham, Wash., organization called the Workplace Bullying Institute, defines it as repeated, health-harming verbal abuse; threatening, humiliating or offensive behavior; and interference, including sabotage, that prevents work from getting done.

The most obvious cost of all this is turnover. A survey done by Challenger Gray & Christmas found that 29% of human resources executives surveyed have seen one or more employees at their companies quit as a direct result of workplace bullying. Furthermore, said Mr. Challenger, the number of employees actually leaving because of bullying is probably much higher, since many employees will not reveal it as the reason for their departure.

A rule of thumb: It costs 1.5 times salary to replace a non-supervisory position, and two times compensation to replace managers, said Mr. Namie. So, if a managerial position paying $100,000 annually is vacated twice in five years because of a workplace bully, the company had $400,000 in additional turnover costs as a direct result.

Another factor to consider is lost productivity attributable to absenteeism. “The associated costs can be outrageous,” Acclaim’s Mr. Fasulo said.

For example, said Mr. Fasulo, Acclaim looked at short-term disability claims and found that 30% were psychological claims, with 12% to 18% of those psychological claims related to bullying. Each employee absent because of psychological claims was away, on average, between 60 and 80 work days.

Tolerating bullying in the workplace may also lead to increased health-care costs. According to researchers at University College London who tracked workers for 11 years, workers who believed they were being unfairly treated at work were more likely to have serious heart disease.

Absenteeism, workers’ comp, disability claims and litigation represent the hard costs, but there are less tangible costs as well. “The bullying reputation cuts into recruitment,” said Mr. Namie. Word eventually gets out on the street that the work environment is not tolerable, he said, and recruits become unwilling to apply.

Mr. Challenger agreed. “Who wants to work for a toxic boss?”

From: http://www.financialweek.com
............................
The problem we have in Higher Education is that the costs come from the taxpayer, the bullies pay nothing and almost always win - self-policing does not work. However, if a university or higher education institution becomes known as a bully nest, then good staff will not want to work there and the good name of the institution will be seriously damaged.

The serial bully

The serial bully is an adult on the outside but a child on the inside; he or she is like a child who has never grown up. One suspects that the bully is emotionally retarded and has a level of emotional development equivalent to a five-year-old, or less. The bully wants to enjoy the benefits of living in the adult world, but is unable and unwilling to accept the responsibilities that go with enjoying the benefits of the adult world. In short, the bully has never learnt to accept responsibility for their behaviour.

When called to account for the way they have chosen to behave, the bully instinctively:

a) denies everything.
- Variations include Trivialization ("This is so trivial it's not worth talking about...")
- The Fresh Start tactic ("I don't know why you're so intent on dwelling on the past"
- "Look, what's past is past, I'll overlook your behaviour and we'll start afresh")

This is an abdication of responsibility by the bully and an attempt to divert and distract attention by using false conciliation. Imagine if this line of defense were available to all criminals ("Look I know I've just murdered 12 people but that's all in the past, we can't change the past, let's put it behind us, concentrate on the future so we can all get on with our lives" - this would do wonders for prison overcrowding).

b) quickly and seamlessly follows the denial with an aggressive counter-attack of counter-criticism or counter-allegation, often based on distortion or fabrication. Lying, deception, duplicity, hypocrisy and blame are the hallmarks of this stage. The purpose is to avoid answering the question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for their behavior. Often the target is tempted - or coerced - into giving another long explanation to prove the bully's allegation false; by the time the explanation is complete, everybody has forgotten the original question.

Both a) and b) are delivered with aggression in the guise of assertiveness; in fact there is no assertiveness (which is about recognizing and respecting the rights of oneself and others) at all. Note that explanation - of the original question - is conspicuous by its absence.

In the unlikely event of denial and counter-attack being insufficient, the bully feigns victim hood or feigns persecution by manipulating people through their emotions, especially guilt. This commonly takes the form of bursting into tears, which most people cannot handle.

Variations include indulgent self-pity, feigning indignation, pretending to be "devastated", claiming they're the one being bullied or harassed, claiming to be "deeply offended", melodrama, martyrdom ("If it wasn't for me...") and a poor-me drama ("You don't know how hard it is for me ... blah blah blah..." and "I'm the one who always has to...î "You think you're having a hard time... "I'm the one being bullied...").

Other tactics include manipulating people's perceptions to portray themselves as the injured party and the target as the villain of the piece.

Sometimes the bully will suddenly claim to be suffering "stress". Alleged ill-health can also be a useful vehicle for gaining attention and sympathy.

By using this response, the bully is able to avoid answering the question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for what they have said or done. It is a pattern of behavior learnt by about the age of 3; most children learn or are taught to grow out of this, but some are not and by adulthood, this avoidance technique has been practiced to perfection.

A further advantage of the denial/counter-attack/feigning victim hood strategy is that it acts as a provocation. The target, who may have taken months to reach this stage, sees their tormentor getting away with it and is provoked into an angry and emotional outburst after which the bully says simply "There, I told you s/he was like that". Anger is one of the mechanisms by which bullies (and all abusers) control their targets. By tapping in to and obtaining an inappropriate release of pent-up anger the bully plays their masterstroke and casts their victim as villain.

When called to account for the way they have chosen to behave, mature adults do not respond by bursting into tears. If you're dealing with a serial bully who has just exhibited this avoidance tactic, sit passively and draw attention to the pattern of behavior they've just exhibited, and then the purpose of the tactic. Then ask for an answer to the question.

Bullies also rely on the denial of others and the fact that when their target reports the abuse they will be disbelieved ("are your sure this is really going on? "I find it hard to believe - are you sure you're not imagining it?"). Frequently targets are asked why they didn't report the abuse before, and they will usually reply "because I didn't think anyone would believe me." Sadly they are often right in this assessment. Because of the Jekyll & Hyde nature, compulsive lying, and plausibility, no one can - or wants - to believe it.

Denial features in most cases of sexual assault, as in the case of Paul Hickson, the UK Olympic swimming coach who sexually assaulted and raped teenage girls in his care over a period of 20 years or more. When his victims were asked why they didn't report the abuse, most replied, "Because I didn't think anyone would believe me". Abusers confidently, indeed arrogantly, rely on this belief, often aggressively inculcating (instilling) the belief ("No-one will ever believe you") just after the sexual assault when their victim is in a distressed state. Targets of bullying in the workplace often come up against the same attitudes by management when they report a bullying colleague. In a workplace environment, the bully usually recruits one or two colleagues who will back up the bully's denial when called to account.

Reflection

Serial bullies harbor a particular hatred of anyone who can articulate their behavior profile, either verbally or in writing in a manner which helps other people see through their deception and their mask of deceit.

The usual instinctive response is to launch a bitter personal attack on the person's credentials, lack of qualifications, and right to talk about personality disorders, psychopathic personality etc, whilst preserving their right to talk about anything they choose - all the while adding nothing to the debate themselves.

Serial bullies hate to see themselves and their behavior reflected as if they are looking into a mirror.

Projection

Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviors etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be painful), and to distract and divert attention away from themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realize this, every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves. This knowledge can be used to perceive the bully's own misdemeanors; for instance, when the allegations are of financial or sexual impropriety, it is likely that the bully has committed these acts; when the bully makes an allegation of abuse (such allegations tend to be vague and non-specific), it is likely to be the bully who has committed the abuse.

When the bully makes allegations of, say, "cowardice" or "negative attitude" it is the bully who is a coward or has a negative attitude. In these circumstances, the bully has to understand that if specious and insubstantive allegations are made, the bully will also be investigated.

When the symptoms of psychiatric injury become apparent to others, most bullies will play the Mental Health Trap, claiming their target is "mentally ill" or "mentally unstable" or has a "mental health problem". It is more likely that this allegation is a projection of the bully's own mental health problems. If this trap is being used on you, assert "projection" as a defense against disciplinary action or as part of your legal proceedings.

It is a key identifying feature of a person with a personality disorder or psychopathic personality that, when called to account, they will accuse the person who is unmasking them of being the one with the personality disorder or psychopathic personality from which they (the bully) suffer.

Affairs

Of over 5000 cases of bullying reported to Bully OnLine and the UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line, in at least half the cases, the bully is having an affair. The affair has little to do with friendship, and a lot to do with strategic alliance in pursuit of power, control, domination and subjugation. In a further quarter of cases, there's often a suspected affair, and in the remaining quarter, there is often a relationship with another based not so much on sexual attraction but on a mutual admiration for the way each other behaves.

If the bully is a male in a senior position, he is often sleeping with a secretary or office administrator, as this is where he gets his information and where he spreads his disinformation. Sometimes the female junior can be identified by her reward, e.g. being the only person allowed to hold the keys of the stock cupboard (everyone has to grovel to her if they want a new pen), or being put in charge of the office in the bully's absence when there are others who are senior to her who would make more appropriate deputies.

Most serial bullies have unhappy and unsatisfactory private lives that are characterized by a string of broken relationships. If you are the current target of a serial bully and taking legal action, a little digging into the bully's past, including their personal life, will usually unearth some unsavoury facts that the bully would prefer not to be made public. In some cases, serial bullies have been found to have criminal convictions for fraud, or to have been compelled to attend therapy or counseling for their habit of compulsive lying, or they might have a record of domestic violence. Under normal circumstances making these facts part of the proceedings might be considered unethical; however, if you're the target of a serial bully, the circumstances are not normal.

Validity of testimony

Because of the serial bully's Jekyll and Hyde nature, compulsive lying, charm and plausibility, the validity of this person's testimony cannot be relied on in disciplinary proceedings, appeal hearings, and under oath at tribunal and in court. Emphasize this when taking action.

Mediation with this type of individual is inappropriate. Serial bullies regard mediation (and arbitration, conciliation, negotiation etc) as appeasement, which they ruthlessly exploit; it allows them to give the impression in public that they are negotiating and being conciliatory, whilst in private they continue the bullying. The lesson of the twentieth century is that you do not appease aggressors.

From: http://www.minor-miracles.net/bonshea/SerialBully.html