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 postmodern 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 ratebuster, 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 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.”
From: http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/unkindlyart.htm by Professor Kenneth Westhues
March 13, 2008
The Shame of the British Psychological Society - Last chapter in the Lisa Blakemore Brown saga
A year ago I devoted several postings to the disgraceful and ludicrous abuse of a clinical psychologist, Lisa Blakemore Brown (LBB), by the British Psychological Society (see collated postings including this one). The abuse lasted 10 years, and was apparently motivated by factors other than evidence, logic or concern for patients. It has in my view brought this society into serious disrepute.
The treatment of LBB started as an obvious travesty when a commercially funded patient "support" group and the BPS itself appear to have colluded to create a triggering complaint. What followed was a protracted farce. The BPS seems to have realized that its actions would not be hidden, and the farce was terminated this week. It has left LBB financially destitute, with a destroyed career and ill health.
The abuse of health professionals by professional leadership is a key threat facing the safety of medical practice. Such abuse often takes place simply because these individuals have expressed a view, or because they have raised concerns. Abuse by professional regulatory bodies is particularly troubling.
The BPS has some important questions to answer, and it is not "closed" as they suggest. There are questions about the integrity, motives and honesty of BPS procedures. There are questions about the factors motivating the entirely spurious complaints, and who arranged for their invention. There are serious concerns about the way in which the BPS attempted to abuse one of its members through the misuse of psychology itself, and the way in which the medical profession assisted.
By contrast, professional regulators have remained silent in the face of gross abuses of science, obvious lies, fraud and the deaths of patients -- where these problems involve commercial companies or a network of powerfully connected colleagues. The BPS remains completely silent on the widespread fraud which is increasingly apparent within the pharmaceutical psychiatric literature. The regulatory body governing medicine in the UK (the General Medical Council) has also remained silent, and has refused to entertain a complaint of professional misconduct from patients and families involving the medical leadership of GlaxoSmithKline.
The silence is deafening. Equally worrying is the fact that this abuse stirred scarcely a breath of protest amongst other members of the BPS. Few psychologists troubled themselves to ask the simplest of questions. Such silence is surely a badge of shame for any caring profession.
Lisa Blakemore Brown has now resigned from the BPS.
From: Scientific Misconduct Blog
The treatment of LBB started as an obvious travesty when a commercially funded patient "support" group and the BPS itself appear to have colluded to create a triggering complaint. What followed was a protracted farce. The BPS seems to have realized that its actions would not be hidden, and the farce was terminated this week. It has left LBB financially destitute, with a destroyed career and ill health.
The abuse of health professionals by professional leadership is a key threat facing the safety of medical practice. Such abuse often takes place simply because these individuals have expressed a view, or because they have raised concerns. Abuse by professional regulatory bodies is particularly troubling.
The BPS has some important questions to answer, and it is not "closed" as they suggest. There are questions about the integrity, motives and honesty of BPS procedures. There are questions about the factors motivating the entirely spurious complaints, and who arranged for their invention. There are serious concerns about the way in which the BPS attempted to abuse one of its members through the misuse of psychology itself, and the way in which the medical profession assisted.
By contrast, professional regulators have remained silent in the face of gross abuses of science, obvious lies, fraud and the deaths of patients -- where these problems involve commercial companies or a network of powerfully connected colleagues. The BPS remains completely silent on the widespread fraud which is increasingly apparent within the pharmaceutical psychiatric literature. The regulatory body governing medicine in the UK (the General Medical Council) has also remained silent, and has refused to entertain a complaint of professional misconduct from patients and families involving the medical leadership of GlaxoSmithKline.
The silence is deafening. Equally worrying is the fact that this abuse stirred scarcely a breath of protest amongst other members of the BPS. Few psychologists troubled themselves to ask the simplest of questions. Such silence is surely a badge of shame for any caring profession.
Lisa Blakemore Brown has now resigned from the BPS.
From: Scientific Misconduct Blog
March 12, 2008
Some interesting links
- The role of HR and management
- Dismissal as an academic boomerang
- Expired disciplinary actions...
- Staff are silenced by fear of reprisals
- Academic unions have their head in the sand...
- Skorupski's Law and other related laws
- Backfire basics - The keys to backfire
- Are they claiming that you are emotionally unstable?
- The spinless Mob...
- The Seven Principles of Public Life - Higher and Further Education
- Dignity at Work - A Good Practice Guide for Higher Education Institutions on Dealing with Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace
- The experience of injustice...
- The no-Asshole rule...
- Six degrees of collaboration
- Academic leadership - The bullying boss
- Procedures for making allegations concerning Higher Education institutions and the 2008 RAE - UK
Meet the Work Bully
'I believe bullying in the workplace is an issue whose time has come. It has always existed to some extent but has become critical for several reasons.
First, today’s managers are being selected for technical competence more than people skills in many industries, particularly high tech and medicine.
Second, jobs are not as secure and new jobs are more difficult to find. Outsourcing, recession, health insurance portability, and skill specialization all prevent escaping from a bully. These issues can create a vulnerability that makes someone an easy target.
Third, HR is much more focused for management’s interests than employee interests than in the past. It is much easier for HR to eliminate a bullied employee than to change the culture that allowed a bully to exist and/or become a manager. My guess the stories posted here are the tip of the iceberg, I could add several more myself.'
— Posted by Elizabeth, New York Times Well Blog
First, today’s managers are being selected for technical competence more than people skills in many industries, particularly high tech and medicine.
Second, jobs are not as secure and new jobs are more difficult to find. Outsourcing, recession, health insurance portability, and skill specialization all prevent escaping from a bully. These issues can create a vulnerability that makes someone an easy target.
Third, HR is much more focused for management’s interests than employee interests than in the past. It is much easier for HR to eliminate a bullied employee than to change the culture that allowed a bully to exist and/or become a manager. My guess the stories posted here are the tip of the iceberg, I could add several more myself.'
— Posted by Elizabeth, New York Times Well Blog
March 10, 2008
Letter to Sir Peter Scott
Dear Sir Peter,
Bullying, Intimidation, and Human Rights in Employment Matters at Kingston University
As an ordinary citizen of Great Britain it saddens me immensely when I find examples of decent people being bullied and intimidated out of their careers. Decent citizens in UK look up to their elected members of state, leaders and academics to eventually eliminate such victimisation from our lives so we can all exist with equality and diversity, and without threat or fear. I refer to a recent case of bullying and intimidation at Kingston University, posted recently on the internet.
The example in this story involves Professor Sir Peter Scott, The university of Kingston, Mr Howard Fredrics, a Trades Union, the Investors in People Scheme and many others but mostly it involves a number of managers and colleagues of Howard Fredrics. He used to have a job and a good reputation at the university until they took it on themselves to destroy Mr Fredrics, with your assistance.
Dignity and Respect
This letter is not intended to disrespect any of the participants, but it is an appeal to Sir Peter Scott, and the university to open their eyes. Many good things have come from these offices, and the full and distinguished career which Sir Peter has enjoyed is everyone’s right. This point is made in statements on the university website and in Sir Peter’s biography – “to promote participation in education”, which Kingston regards as a democratic entitlement.
This is therefore a cause championed by Sir Peter which has the appearance of providing him with much wealth and status. One could easily argue the truth behind this if you read what happened to Howard Fredrics. All his democratic rights in this respect have been systematically ignored or removed.
The law and Government Guidelines
How then has Sir Peter Scott become party to the destruction of the career of Howard Fredrics? What laws have been broken? The university are placed in a position of trust as employers and the law is quite clear. Sir Peter, and the University are liable for the health and safety of their employees.
Howard Fredrics
This story starts with an illness caused by work and Howard Fredrics exercising his rights to a period of absence in order to get over it. Reading the evidence set out on the internet it is plain to see the cause of this illness is the lack of support Mr Fredrics received in the face of too much challenge, while doing his duty for the university. No wonder he went off with stress. (long standing TUC guidelines for Mental Health in the Workplace have clearly been breached).
The story then goes on to his line manager taking advantage of his absence and some fairly minor breaches of unclear and ambiguous policy, to install another person in his position. This forces Howard to return to work, prematurely, in order to defend his position. Clearly this action is tactical and deliberate. Challenging someone already ill with stress in this way is evil behaviour. The position is no longer defensible, due to the workplace being turned into a hostile environment and then eventually a set of trumped up charges, made by a whipped up mob sees Mr Fredrics ejected on a “disciplinary” matter.
Common Practice in UK Work Places
It should not surprise you to learn that the way Mr Fredrics was dismissed, is contrary to the employment act but common practice in many British workplaces.
Expensive
The story has significant hidden expense; for the taxpayer, the victim and for the university. Simply this is how responsible people spend tax-payers money, made possible by this government who will not legislate properly against it. This brings an element of scandal. Money is being wasted hand over fist here - fighting this escalating case. It appears this university would rather fund the antics of its line managers, training them to become ruthless academic leaders of the future, than be seen to be a fair employer, which looks after its people’s welfare and teaches it’s managers how to respect it’s employees.
Sucking Others In
This is evident because when Mr and Mrs Frederic’s do attempt to defend themselves, they are subject to further abuse by the university itself which issues more threats and intimidation. Sir Peter Scott then becomes an active participant. I refer to the threatening and intimidating letters, produced after a recent hearing at the university, which comes across in the Frederic’s account as nothing more than a Kangaroo Court. Any form of fairness is removed from the proceedings.
This “hearing” is further remarkable because it seems to be totally void of any thought for Mr Fredrics side of the story. How is he able to defend himself under these circumstances?
Evidence of the Use of Common Destructive Techniques
Everything posted so far at www.sirpeterscott.com looks to be based on evidence. This identifies Mr Fredrics treatment by his colleagues as using common techniques. These are used to persuade the employer into backing the bully(s) against anyone who they don’t like, in order to replace them with someone they do, regardless of skills and previous performance. This is a well known, prevalent and highly destructive technique which is un-contractual, against the law and against common decency, it is made possible by ambiguous, un-affordable law and government policy. It is unwanted behaviour in the extreme, which has a devastating impact on the target. Unfortunately it appears you have been sucked in to aiding and abetting the perpetrators.
If it was ever meant to protect its people, the university and it’s policies are clearly able to be twisted in order to promote this unwanted behaviour. Instead of protecting Mr Fredrics, it hosts a “court” that further contravenes Mr Fredrics right to a fair trial. If the university is party to this travesty, that makes it guilty of sharp employment practice.
This story is not over yet. Is this the outcome you want? You can aid and abet the destruction of Mr Fredrics, or you can act like a responsible authority and protect him. Either way its up to you, but the outcome will go down in history, because I am sure Mr Fredrics will ensure every step is measures against the law.
As a responsible employer it is not too late to confirm what I have said by consulting any of the other addressee’s to this letter and impartial witnesses and investigators. Then you can intervene for the common good by sorting out the line managers who have perpetrated this vile and dumb act. By doing that you will achieve a lot more, for yourself, the university and other people adversely affected by this behaviour in many walks of life and therefore avert becoming just another bullying employer, with a university staffed by fearful people.
To be sure the cost so far, and the mounting legal expense – plus the cost of a settlement even at this stage could be better spent sponsoring at least ten poor students through a decent education.
Written by S.D.
Bullying, Intimidation, and Human Rights in Employment Matters at Kingston University
As an ordinary citizen of Great Britain it saddens me immensely when I find examples of decent people being bullied and intimidated out of their careers. Decent citizens in UK look up to their elected members of state, leaders and academics to eventually eliminate such victimisation from our lives so we can all exist with equality and diversity, and without threat or fear. I refer to a recent case of bullying and intimidation at Kingston University, posted recently on the internet.
The example in this story involves Professor Sir Peter Scott, The university of Kingston, Mr Howard Fredrics, a Trades Union, the Investors in People Scheme and many others but mostly it involves a number of managers and colleagues of Howard Fredrics. He used to have a job and a good reputation at the university until they took it on themselves to destroy Mr Fredrics, with your assistance.
Dignity and Respect
This letter is not intended to disrespect any of the participants, but it is an appeal to Sir Peter Scott, and the university to open their eyes. Many good things have come from these offices, and the full and distinguished career which Sir Peter has enjoyed is everyone’s right. This point is made in statements on the university website and in Sir Peter’s biography – “to promote participation in education”, which Kingston regards as a democratic entitlement.
This is therefore a cause championed by Sir Peter which has the appearance of providing him with much wealth and status. One could easily argue the truth behind this if you read what happened to Howard Fredrics. All his democratic rights in this respect have been systematically ignored or removed.
The law and Government Guidelines
How then has Sir Peter Scott become party to the destruction of the career of Howard Fredrics? What laws have been broken? The university are placed in a position of trust as employers and the law is quite clear. Sir Peter, and the University are liable for the health and safety of their employees.
Howard Fredrics
This story starts with an illness caused by work and Howard Fredrics exercising his rights to a period of absence in order to get over it. Reading the evidence set out on the internet it is plain to see the cause of this illness is the lack of support Mr Fredrics received in the face of too much challenge, while doing his duty for the university. No wonder he went off with stress. (long standing TUC guidelines for Mental Health in the Workplace have clearly been breached).
The story then goes on to his line manager taking advantage of his absence and some fairly minor breaches of unclear and ambiguous policy, to install another person in his position. This forces Howard to return to work, prematurely, in order to defend his position. Clearly this action is tactical and deliberate. Challenging someone already ill with stress in this way is evil behaviour. The position is no longer defensible, due to the workplace being turned into a hostile environment and then eventually a set of trumped up charges, made by a whipped up mob sees Mr Fredrics ejected on a “disciplinary” matter.
Common Practice in UK Work Places
It should not surprise you to learn that the way Mr Fredrics was dismissed, is contrary to the employment act but common practice in many British workplaces.
Expensive
The story has significant hidden expense; for the taxpayer, the victim and for the university. Simply this is how responsible people spend tax-payers money, made possible by this government who will not legislate properly against it. This brings an element of scandal. Money is being wasted hand over fist here - fighting this escalating case. It appears this university would rather fund the antics of its line managers, training them to become ruthless academic leaders of the future, than be seen to be a fair employer, which looks after its people’s welfare and teaches it’s managers how to respect it’s employees.
Sucking Others In
This is evident because when Mr and Mrs Frederic’s do attempt to defend themselves, they are subject to further abuse by the university itself which issues more threats and intimidation. Sir Peter Scott then becomes an active participant. I refer to the threatening and intimidating letters, produced after a recent hearing at the university, which comes across in the Frederic’s account as nothing more than a Kangaroo Court. Any form of fairness is removed from the proceedings.
This “hearing” is further remarkable because it seems to be totally void of any thought for Mr Fredrics side of the story. How is he able to defend himself under these circumstances?
Evidence of the Use of Common Destructive Techniques
Everything posted so far at www.sirpeterscott.com looks to be based on evidence. This identifies Mr Fredrics treatment by his colleagues as using common techniques. These are used to persuade the employer into backing the bully(s) against anyone who they don’t like, in order to replace them with someone they do, regardless of skills and previous performance. This is a well known, prevalent and highly destructive technique which is un-contractual, against the law and against common decency, it is made possible by ambiguous, un-affordable law and government policy. It is unwanted behaviour in the extreme, which has a devastating impact on the target. Unfortunately it appears you have been sucked in to aiding and abetting the perpetrators.
If it was ever meant to protect its people, the university and it’s policies are clearly able to be twisted in order to promote this unwanted behaviour. Instead of protecting Mr Fredrics, it hosts a “court” that further contravenes Mr Fredrics right to a fair trial. If the university is party to this travesty, that makes it guilty of sharp employment practice.
This story is not over yet. Is this the outcome you want? You can aid and abet the destruction of Mr Fredrics, or you can act like a responsible authority and protect him. Either way its up to you, but the outcome will go down in history, because I am sure Mr Fredrics will ensure every step is measures against the law.
As a responsible employer it is not too late to confirm what I have said by consulting any of the other addressee’s to this letter and impartial witnesses and investigators. Then you can intervene for the common good by sorting out the line managers who have perpetrated this vile and dumb act. By doing that you will achieve a lot more, for yourself, the university and other people adversely affected by this behaviour in many walks of life and therefore avert becoming just another bullying employer, with a university staffed by fearful people.
To be sure the cost so far, and the mounting legal expense – plus the cost of a settlement even at this stage could be better spent sponsoring at least ten poor students through a decent education.
Written by S.D.
March 09, 2008
Bullying More Harmful Than Sexual Harassment On The Job, Say Researchers
Workplace bullying, such as belittling comments, persistent criticism of work and withholding resources, appears to inflict more harm on employees than sexual harassment, say researchers who presented their findings at a recent conference.
"As sexual harassment becomes less acceptable in society, organizations may be more attuned to helping victims, who may therefore find it easier to cope," said lead author M. Sandy Hershcovis, PhD, of the University of Manitoba. "In contrast, non-violent forms of workplace aggression such as incivility and bullying are not illegal, leaving victims to fend for themselves."
Hershcovis and co-author Julian Barling, PhD, of Queen's University in Ontario, Canada, reviewed 110 studies conducted over 21 years that compared the consequences of employees' experience of sexual harassment and workplace aggression. Specifically, the authors looked at the effect on job, co-worker and supervisor satisfaction, workers' stress, anger and anxiety levels as well as workers' mental and physical health. Job turnover and emotional ties to the job were also compared.
The authors distinguished among different forms of workplace aggression. Incivility included rudeness and discourteous verbal and non-verbal behaviors. Bullying included persistently criticizing employees' work; yelling; repeatedly reminding employees of mistakes; spreading gossip or lies; ignoring or excluding workers; and insulting employees' habits, attitudes or private life. Interpersonal conflict included behaviors that involved hostility, verbal aggression and angry exchanges.
Both bullying and sexual harassment can create negative work environments and unhealthy consequences for employees, but the researchers found that workplace aggression has more severe consequences. Employees who experienced bullying, incivility or interpersonal conflict were more likely to quit their jobs, have lower well-being, be less satisfied with their jobs and have less satisfying relations with their bosses than employees who were sexually harassed, the researchers found.
Furthermore, bullied employees reported more job stress, less job commitment and higher levels of anger and anxiety. No differences were found between employees experiencing either type of mistreatment on how satisfied they were with their co-workers or with their work.
"Bullying is often more subtle, and may include behaviors that do not appear obvious to others," said Hershcovis. "For instance, how does an employee report to their boss that they have been excluded from lunch? Or that they are being ignored by a coworker? The insidious nature of these behaviors makes them difficult to deal with and sanction."
From a total of 128 samples that were used, 46 included subjects who experienced sexual harassment, 86 experienced workplace aggression and six experienced both. Sample sizes ranged from 1,491 to 53,470 people. Participants ranged from 18 to 65 years old. The work aggression samples included both men and women. The sexual harassment samples examined primarily women because, Hershcovis said, past research has shown that men interpret and respond differently to the behaviors that women perceive as sexual harassment.
This finding was presented at the Seventh International Conference on Work, Stress and Health, co-sponsored by the American Psychological Association, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the Society for Occupational Health Psychology.
Presentation: Comparing the Outcomes of Sexual Harassment and Workplace Aggression: A Meta-Analysis, M. Sandy Hershcovis, PhD, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba and Julian Barling, Queen's University, Ontario, Canada.
American Psychological Association (2008, March 9). Bullying More Harmful Than Sexual Harassment On The Job, Say Researchers. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 9, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/03/080308090927.htm
"As sexual harassment becomes less acceptable in society, organizations may be more attuned to helping victims, who may therefore find it easier to cope," said lead author M. Sandy Hershcovis, PhD, of the University of Manitoba. "In contrast, non-violent forms of workplace aggression such as incivility and bullying are not illegal, leaving victims to fend for themselves."
Hershcovis and co-author Julian Barling, PhD, of Queen's University in Ontario, Canada, reviewed 110 studies conducted over 21 years that compared the consequences of employees' experience of sexual harassment and workplace aggression. Specifically, the authors looked at the effect on job, co-worker and supervisor satisfaction, workers' stress, anger and anxiety levels as well as workers' mental and physical health. Job turnover and emotional ties to the job were also compared.
The authors distinguished among different forms of workplace aggression. Incivility included rudeness and discourteous verbal and non-verbal behaviors. Bullying included persistently criticizing employees' work; yelling; repeatedly reminding employees of mistakes; spreading gossip or lies; ignoring or excluding workers; and insulting employees' habits, attitudes or private life. Interpersonal conflict included behaviors that involved hostility, verbal aggression and angry exchanges.
Both bullying and sexual harassment can create negative work environments and unhealthy consequences for employees, but the researchers found that workplace aggression has more severe consequences. Employees who experienced bullying, incivility or interpersonal conflict were more likely to quit their jobs, have lower well-being, be less satisfied with their jobs and have less satisfying relations with their bosses than employees who were sexually harassed, the researchers found.
Furthermore, bullied employees reported more job stress, less job commitment and higher levels of anger and anxiety. No differences were found between employees experiencing either type of mistreatment on how satisfied they were with their co-workers or with their work.
"Bullying is often more subtle, and may include behaviors that do not appear obvious to others," said Hershcovis. "For instance, how does an employee report to their boss that they have been excluded from lunch? Or that they are being ignored by a coworker? The insidious nature of these behaviors makes them difficult to deal with and sanction."
From a total of 128 samples that were used, 46 included subjects who experienced sexual harassment, 86 experienced workplace aggression and six experienced both. Sample sizes ranged from 1,491 to 53,470 people. Participants ranged from 18 to 65 years old. The work aggression samples included both men and women. The sexual harassment samples examined primarily women because, Hershcovis said, past research has shown that men interpret and respond differently to the behaviors that women perceive as sexual harassment.
This finding was presented at the Seventh International Conference on Work, Stress and Health, co-sponsored by the American Psychological Association, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the Society for Occupational Health Psychology.
Presentation: Comparing the Outcomes of Sexual Harassment and Workplace Aggression: A Meta-Analysis, M. Sandy Hershcovis, PhD, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba and Julian Barling, Queen's University, Ontario, Canada.
American Psychological Association (2008, March 9). Bullying More Harmful Than Sexual Harassment On The Job, Say Researchers. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 9, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/03/080308090927.htm
You are not alone...
This is a great site, and has made me feel less alone by reading it. Thank you. - Anonymous postDear anonymous, you are not alone.
We can understand why and how you would feel lonely in this battle. It is in the nature of what we experience, the overwhelming sense of injustice that one finds unbearable to live with. Sadly, there are no easy ways out.
The cliche is that you ought to first look after your health, eat well, exercise, etc. But the shock is usually so big that depression settles in and motivation becomes non-existent. If you are fighting a legal battle, then things become harder to cope with. There is financial and emotional strain, plus the prospect of being out of work for some time or even forever.
The purpose of this blog is multiple: to inform, to expose, to let know that we are not alone, to support, to fight on... We can only suggest that you try to get in touch with others who have similar experiences. This may confirm what you already know but it will also provide some comfort and possibly some support to get through hard times. You are feeling alone but try not to be alone. You can always email us.
March 08, 2008
The problem is...
I believe a competent scientific analysis would show that bullying has direct and immediate benefits to the bully and the bully's employer (in the same sense that robbery and murder might also have direct and immediate benefits), but the long-term effect would be indisputably costly in lost productivity, sickness, staff turnover, de-skilling and opportunity costs (i.e. the potential activities that bullying replaced).
But each of those HR pounds was attached to a decision, and emotion and a reputation. There was no attachment to the non-decision to confront bullying. This is why bullying (or at least the possibility of bullying) must be identified, acknowledged and acted upon from the very start of the complaints procedure. Most complaints procedures begin with denial, "both sides" of the story and "clarifying misunderstandings" that invest in supporting the bully's status.
Anonymous contribution
But each of those HR pounds was attached to a decision, and emotion and a reputation. There was no attachment to the non-decision to confront bullying. This is why bullying (or at least the possibility of bullying) must be identified, acknowledged and acted upon from the very start of the complaints procedure. Most complaints procedures begin with denial, "both sides" of the story and "clarifying misunderstandings" that invest in supporting the bully's status.
Anonymous contribution
March 07, 2008
The Concorde Fallacy
The Concorde Fallacy: the probability of continued investment in an activity is directly proportional to the investment already made, and entirely independent of the prospects of the activity's successful outcome.In the original Anglo-French aircraft project taxpayers managed to expend 660 million pounds to earn a total revenue of 280 million operating 16 planes for the benefit of conspicious expenditure by the rich and famous.
Likewise once an institution fails to recognise bullying in the workplace, the financial and emotional expenditure demands further efforts to prove that the allegation is unfounded.
Contribution by Stuart
[Also known as the Concorde Effect, sunk cost fallacy, or our boys shall not have died in vain fallacy. In economics, any past investment which cannot be altered by present or future actions is considered to be sunk cost. The Concorde fallacy is the act of allowing sunk cost to affect future investment decisions. - From: http://everything2.com]
Connections...
Note the close connections between Kingston and St. George's NHS Trust, whose medical training programme Kingston validates.
Most importantly, note the case of Ian Perkin, former finance director at St. George's who was victimized for blowing the whistle on fudged cancelled operation statistics. (See: http://www.nhsexpose.co.uk)
Kingston Board Member, Colin Watts was the Personnel Director at St. George's at the time. Peter Scott is on the Board at St. George's.
Get the picture?
Anonymous contribution
Most importantly, note the case of Ian Perkin, former finance director at St. George's who was victimized for blowing the whistle on fudged cancelled operation statistics. (See: http://www.nhsexpose.co.uk)
Kingston Board Member, Colin Watts was the Personnel Director at St. George's at the time. Peter Scott is on the Board at St. George's.
Get the picture?
Anonymous contribution
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)