Anonymous said...

Thanks for having this site. In the US, it is almost impossible to do anything legally or otherwise about bullying. We have no contracts or any recourse.

I have my lawsuit going against a physics association headed by a female academic -- only because they reacted differently to bullying based on gender: when men bully, violence is feared, so action is taken.

When women bully, people seem to point to personality flaws in the victim like my employer did with me. Also in my case, where I was a manager of two bullies who mobbed together because they applied for my job but did not get it (I did), the employer said "support staff" (ie women) are naturally emotional and you as their boss have to listen to their venting, but in your office behind the door where it does not bother us!

I agree that some of the women who advanced prior to us have become Queen Bees towards the next generation of women, such as the female who is in charge of the physics society. I wish I understood their or her hostility. It ruined my career.

(sister of physics brothers)
13/04/08

More on the serial offender...

Kingston loses tribunal - 20 October 2000 - Phil Baty, Times Higher Education

Kingston University dismissed senior lecturer Agi Oldfield unfairly, giving her an ultimatum to "resign or be sacked" after she made informal complaints of harassment against her line manager and complained about breaches of her contract, a tribunal has ruled.

Ms Oldfield, a principal lecturer at the school of human resources management, resigned from Kingston, but the South London tribunal ruled that she was constructively dismissed. The university "repudiated" her contract by giving her the ultimatum, said the tribunal chair, Mr I. S. Lamb, in his judgment.

In late 1997, Ms Oldfield complained orally to David Miles, dean of the business faculty, saying she felt harassed and bullied by her line manager, Christine Edwards, who had questioned Ms Oldfield's competence.

The tribunal did not adjudicate on the allegations and counter-allegations between Ms Oldfield and Professor Edwards, but found that the difficulties were handled badly, at the expense of Ms Oldfield's career.

The university repeatedly asked Ms Oldfield to withdraw her allegations, she was assigned a new line manager and removed as an MA course director. In June 1998, Ms Oldfield brought a formal grievance, saying she had been "summarily removed" as course director of an MA in breach of her contract.

"The considerations of the continued employment of Ms OldfieldI her role and job title, responsibilities and pursuit or withdrawal of the allegations against Professor Edwards, wereI overlapping with each other," said Mr Lamb in his written judgment.

During the grievance hearing Ms Oldfield was told by personnel director Elizabeth Lanchbery - criticised by the tribunal for being "underhand" - that if the issues could not be resolved, Ms Oldfield might have to be "sacked", Mr Lamb said. Ms Oldfield's grievance was rejected and rejected again at appeal by vice-chancellor Peter Scott.

In October 1998, Ms Oldfield was offered a job at Surrey University, despite an "unfavourable verbal reference from somebody at Kingston", the tribunal said. "By then, Ms Lanchbery had said to Ms Oldfield that it would be best if she accepted the position, because unless she resigned, she would be sacked," said the judgment.

Mr Lamb said: "Up to September (when the job at Surrey came up) Ms Oldfield was pursuing the internal grievance procedure. As she did so, there was a gradually deteriorating background state of affairs relating to her relationship with Christine Edwards, in particular the factor that Christine Edwards questioned her competence.

"(Ms Oldfield) was constantly told to withdraw her allegations, although she was not formally pursuing them... We accept the evidence that the final straw in the course of events was the statement by Ms Lanchbery that the applicant should resign or be sacked," he said.

The university believed "there had been a breakdown of relationships and that Ms Oldfield was behaving unreasonably", said Mr Lamb. "The university did not act reasonably in treating that as a sufficient reason for dismissal.

"What (Ms Oldfield) had done was to pursue the grievance procedures... as she was entitled to do. She was willing to record that she was not pursuing her complaints against Christine Edwards. The university's responsibility in that situation was to find her alternative responsibilities commensurate with her position as a principal lecturer. Instead it adopted the 'take it or leave it' attitude...

"We accept that the effective cause of her resignation was the breach of contract by the (university) and the outright repudiation of her contract by the ultimatum." The tribunal decided unanimously that Ms Oldfield's complaint of unfair dismissal was "well-founded".

Human Resources 'Fully Resourced'

Another milestone was reached by our university last week with the news that, following the latest round of appointments, there was now one human resources manager available for every member of academic staff.

"This is an exciting breakthrough," declared Louise Bimpson, our Corporate Director of Human Resources (formerly the Personnel Officer). "Only last week, a survey by Coventry University revealed that university academic staff had the worst perceptions of their managers of any employment sector. What better way could there be to resolve this unsatisfactory situation than by drastically increasing the overall number of managers who can provide management training?"

She went on to tell our reporter Keith Ponting (29) that this latest increase in human resources meant that all academic staff could at last be liberated from their "traditional obsessive concern with teaching and research" and be free to develop their leadership andperformance-management skills, as well as their capacity to harness their endeavours to the strategic goals of the university going forward.

Asked by our reporter if there was any reliable evidence that the employment of ever-larger numbers of human resources staff had done anything whatsoever to improve the performance of individual universities, Ms Bimpson said that "the HR revolution still had a long way to go". "But," she added, "always remember that the Tower of Babel wasn't built in a day."

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

A serial offender?

Beneviste v Kingston University [2006] UKEAT 0393_05_1703 (17 March
2006) http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2006/0393_05_1703.html or
http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/Public/Upload/05_0393RJNODA.doc

Benveniste v Kingston University [2007] UKEAT 0008_07_2803 (28 March
2007) http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2007/0008_07_2803.html or
http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/Public/Upload/07_0008fhAMJOJ.doc

Dutt v. Kingston University [2007] UKEAT 0351_06_2408 (24 August 2007)
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2007/0351_06_2408.html or
http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/Public/Upload/06_0351fhLBDAmcm.doc

Ban on [university] student who spoke out on the net

A student who criticised Anglia Ruskin University has been suspended. Disgruntled Naomi Sugai has also been threatened with legal action over her "unfounded" comments on a website.

Naomi posted a video on YouTube complaining about a number of blunders on her £4,750-per-year MA course in management. Her complaints included classes being cancelled without warning and not being able to take advertised modules.

The university has now threatened to sue her over a statement on the site - and warned the 24-year-old security guards will remove her by force if she tries to enter its East Road campus.

Miss Sugai said: "I am really annoyed about this, and I'm not going to take it lying down. The course has not been like they made it sound and, by bullying me more, the university is only making this worse."

She did not remove the offending statements about a member of staff as requested and Steve Bennett, the university's secretary and clerk, warned Miss Sugai: "Should you attend the campus during your suspension, security staff have been instructed to remove you and, if necessary, seek assistance from the police.

"Given the seriously defamatory nature of your comments this matter has also been referred to our solicitors."

Earlier this month, Miss Sugai of Bosworth Road, Cherry Hinton hit out at the "slow and inefficient" university, threatening to report ARU to an independent adjudicator.

The letter from Mr Bennett said: "I wrote to you on March 17 and warned you unless all unfounded allegations were removed from your YouTube site you would be suspended. I regret to note that you have not removed this content.

"I must therefore advise you that you are suspended pending disciplinary (and potentially legal) action against you."

Miss Sugai told the [Cambridge] News she never received a warning about being suspended, and is now taking her own legal advice.

The video has been viewed more than 900 times, and she has been contacted by a number of students with similar concerns.

An earlier letter from Prof Martin Reynolds, pro vice chancellor of the university's Ashcroft International Business School, said: "We would appreciate a response to our request to remove the video. "Its contents are potentially distressing for other Anglia Ruskin students and it undermines the programme you are studying."

After being contacted by the News, Mr Bennett said the suspension was not for complaining, but in response to "serious unfounded allegations against a senior member of staff".

He said: "On March 17, I wrote to the student and asked her to remove the allegations within 48 hours, otherwise she would be suspended forthwith. "As the remarks were not removed, I wrote to her on March 20 informing her that she was suspended pending disciplinary action."

The news comes days after emails encouraging staff to allegedly "bully" students into giving it good ratings in the National Student Survey were leaked to the News.

After propping up the Sunday Times league table, partly due to what vice chancellor Mike Thorne described as "very poor" reviews from undergraduates, he asked staff to advise students positive responses would improve the prestige of their own qualifications. He wrote: "It does occur to me that we need to ensure students are aware of the relation between the grades they give and, thanks to the league tables, the perceived value of their degrees."

Story from: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk

Check the YouTube video and further comments

Workplace bullies and the academy - bullies weren’t exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandelier!

Check out this brief article in the New York Times about bullies in the workplace, their strategies and the toll they take on individuals and the productivity of the organizations they work for. In response to this article’s request to hear stories of workplace bullying, there are 466 comments, and they’re still being posted this morning as I write. (Don’t miss comment #53 from Liz, an attorney and Army Reservist who said she has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder not from her tour of duty in Iraq, but rather from her civililan job!) I read the first one hundred comments, and have noticed some interesting themes:

1. While careers in medicine and the law are heavily represented in the incidents reported here, the academic workplace is specifically mentioned in ten out of the first 100 complaints: see comments 2, 17, 25, 30, 44, 55, 64, 70, 86, and 96. Yep, folks, read ‘em and weep: Chairs bullying junior faculty, Deans bullying tenured faculty, professors bullying students, and in one case, students bullying a professor, so there’s something for everyone.
   
   
2. The article notes that “a large share of the problem involves women victimizing women. The Zogby survey showed that 40 percent of workplace bullies are women,” and the comments bear this out. Comment 55 from Dana, a graduate student, writes that the faculty member making her life miserable “was awarded her doctorate in the late 1960s, when women had a tougher go of it in higher education. I’m convinced through my experience with her and others that that generation of feminists approach their careers with a grand chip on their shoulders - and take it out on those of us who came in through the next feminist wave of a decade later.”
   
   
3. Just looking at the syntax and writing style of the comments, you can see the toll that workplace bullying takes on people. So many of the comments are in all lower-case letters (people reporting bullying seem to refer to themselves as “i” instead of “I”), and they are full of run-on sentences. I couldn’t read more than 100–my guts were churning and bile was rising in my throat, and there’s only so much rank injustice that a girl can take on a sunny, spring morning!
   
   
4. There are a few commenters who try to jolly the others out of their misery (”try making friends!”), and others who claim that bullying victims are just whiners who can’t take criticism. But, those reactions seem naive on the one hand, and cruel on the other. The clear lesson is that people who are being bullied need to leave those jobs in order to preserve whatever’s left of their health and sanity.

On the question of women bullying other women: I don’t think it’s fair at all to tar a whole generation with that brush–after all, some of the most supportive, nurturing people who have mentored me and many other junior women are from that generation. Until fairly recently, it was only that generation of women faculty who were senior enough to engage in bullying. Sadly, Historiann is familiar with women bullying women–it was considered not a bug, but rather a feature of her former department. The bullying women were “useful idiots” who could be relied on to police junior women; the senior men could then hide behind their skirts and deny that gender bias was an issue. I don’t think this kind of behavior can be pinned on the generation of women who earned their degrees in the 60s and 70s–I’ve seen it in people whose degrees are from the 1980s and 1990s, too. The critical issue is power, not generation, and most regular faculty with 1990s Ph.D.’s are tenured now and therefore have at least a small purchase on power and influence in their departments.

The one advantage that academics have over people in other lines of work is that bullies aren’t as able to affect our prospects for other employment the way that bullying bosses in private industry can. If we keep publishing and maintain connections with supportive scholars outside of our institutions, we can get out of a bad job. We don’t need letters of recommendation from our department chairs–if you’re an Assistant Professor, a letter from a supportive Associate Professor will do nicely to testify implicitly, if not explicitly, that you’re not a troublemaking malcontent but rather an excellent colleage with limitless potential. The only exception to this is if your bully happens to be someone of importance in your field–but this is probably unusual: by definition, people who are important in their field spend their time writing books, working with students, and hobnobbing at conferences with other people important in their field. In general, they don’t have the time, let alone the inclination, to try to mess with someone else’s career. In my experience, the bullies weren’t exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, to put it charitably. They weren’t terribly productive scholars or successful teachers, which is probably why they felt so intimidated by smart young things who were clearly going places. So, they chose to make their post-tenure careers as hall monitors rather than as scholars.

Et vous, mes amis? Any thoughts as to why the groves of academe are such fertile fields for bullies? (Or, conversely, why academics are such thin-skinned, overly sensistive complainers?) Do you have your own stories to share? Discuss.
-------------
From: http://www.historiann.com

...

Stuart said...

Someone once said you can never overestimate the sincerity and dedication of bullies or their acolytes, and never underestimate their stupidity. This puts you in opposition with people who are totally dedicated to the bully, often irrational and incapable of seeing the injustice of their actions. You are simply disloyal and anything otherwise is like trying to reason with a group of toddlers. (Imagine if they were all aged 2-3 and you took them through the sweetie section of a supermarket - familiar?) - Stuart
--------------
From 'Innocent Bystanders' we quote: '...Why don't people intervene when they see colleagues being bullied at work? Often it's the fear factor, says Mandy Telford, coordinator for Dignity at Work at Unite union. "People are frightened that bullying will happen to them and they will lose their job...'

From 'The Bystander Effect' we quote: 'The bystander effect is watching some evil take place, but since we are watching with others who are watching, and no one seems to be doing anything about the evil, we go on watching and doing nothing about it.'

From 'Groupthink' we quote:

'1. Illusion of invulnerability – Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.

2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.

3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.

5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.

6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.

7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.

8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

From 'The Betrayal of the Bystanders' we quote: '...For example, if someone has known you for ten years, they see your track record of conduct for the last ten years. In other words, they have seen how you conduct yourself along this way of life we're bound upon. No, they don't see everything you've said and done. But they have seen a lot. They have seen you react to many various stimuli.

That track record of yours sketches your character in their eyes. This representation of what kind of person you are is based on your CONDUCT (your words and deeds), not on mere hearsay about you. So no one should be able to come along and tell them JUST ANYTHING about you...

To believe these things about you they have to unknow everything they know about you. That is, they have to unknow you. They have to revise history. They have to erase that track record of yours. And that track record is your life. They have to wipe it out. That takes your life. Which is why they call it "character assassination." Your whole life goes up in smoke. And a figment of the imagination is substituted for it...'

Staff give sector managers low marks

University staff have the worst perceptions of their managers of any employment sector, seeing them as secretive, uncaring and controlling, according to new research. The Work-Life Balance 2007 survey carried out by Coventry University asked 2,300 employees across ten sectors for their opinions on the leadership styles of senior managers in their organisations.

"The results for higher education were far from flattering and among the worst of any sector we analysed," the researchers said. "The leadership styles in higher education were perceived to be predominantly reactive, secretive, inconsistent, demotivating, controlling and indecisive."

More than half of the 300 higher education employees surveyed said that their managers were reactive (53 per cent), secretive (52 per cent) and inconsistent (51 per cent) compared with 40 per cent, 42 per cent and 40 per cent respectively in the private sector.

Only a third of university workers said their leaders were caring, compared with almost half of private-sector respondents. Fewer than a quarter of higher education staff felt that their organisation was loyal to them and that it treated them fairly, while more than 40 per cent of private sector staff felt this way.

University staff were also more likely to say they had experienced bullying by managers and colleagues and more likely to report stress than other workers, the survey found. A quarter of university respondents said they felt stressed all of the time or almost all of the time, compared with 19 per cent of staff in other parts of the public sector and 15 per cent in the private sector.

Ewart Wooldridge, chief executive of the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, said the report made "disturbing reading". "It is the kind of evidence we would want to build into our leadership programmes to help participants reflect on sector-wide issues and take those messages back to their institutions," he said. "We are using research-based evidence of our own as the basis for real-life case studies on a wide range of leadership issues, as we think leaders learn best from reflecting on that reality."

Roger Kline, equalities officer for the University and College Union, said: "The report confirms the results of our own surveys, which show there is an epidemic of stress and bullying arising out of poor management.

"Stress is an institutional issue. Universities should not hide behind the idea that it is good for employees or that it is primarily caused by problems in their personal lives," he said. The UCU wants bullying to be regarded as a workplace hazard that needs risk assessment, Mr Kline said.

The Universities and Colleges Employers Association said that the sector placed a "great deal of emphasis" on stress management.

A Ucea spokesman added: "Although this report is based on responses from only 300 higher education sector academic and support staff, there are considerations for all levels of staff. It is reassuring to note that many institutions have exemplary policies and procedures in place to tackle issues such as stress, bullying and harassment."

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk, by Melanie Newman
--------------------
Academic managers are predominantly reactive, secretive, inconsistent, demotivating, controlling and indecisive. - YEAP.

Fewer than a quarter of higher education staff felt that their organisation was loyal to them and that it treated them fairly. - YEAP.

A quarter of university respondents said they felt stressed all of the time or almost all of the time. - YEAP.

Now then, what will UCU do about it? What will the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education do about it? What will the UCEA do about it? What will HEFCE do about it? What will the Minister of State, Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, Mr Bill Rammell MP, do about it?

Quote from the web site of the 'Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills':

'Britain's higher education is a major contributor to the economic success and social well being of the country. Higher education is a national asset, whose excellence in teaching and research is world recognised. Better educated and more highly skilled people are more likely to be in work, earn more and contribute more productively to our economy and society. Knowledge and skills provide people with their surest way into work and prosperity, helping eradicate the causes of poverty and division.

About 70% of the 2020 workforce is already beyond compulsory education age. We will therefore have to raise skill levels amongst the current workforce in order for Britain to compete successfully. The future of higher education must be one where:

* higher education institutions work to widen participation beyond young people leaving college or school with good A levels;
* put learners and employers at the heart of their provision; and
* strengthen their leading position in international education through excellent teaching and innovative research.'

Dear Mr Bill Rammell, you will achieve very little of the above when we as academics continue to suffer - very little, for nobody can be productive if they work with fear, lack of dignity and lack of protection from abusive managers. You better have a chat with UCEA to do something about it. As a politician, if you find it difficult to identify with the human suffering, perhaps you may identify with the ever-raising costs of workplace bullying.

Anonymous said... and anonymous is right!

It's not just about anger - some (most?) of the "finest" bullies in higher education wear smiles most of the time. It's a matter of manipulation and establishing stratified order with those at the bottom denied opportunities or acknowledgment. Forgive me if I am ruffling feathers, but I have found that women are most often "skilled" at this sort of "kind-faced" bullying based on their likes and dislikes, particularly if you are what has been described in this blog as a "target." There is little recourse for situations like this because if you object to the situation in a kind or direct manner, this is considered aggressive and you run the risk of being labeled a problem or a bully.

Anonymous

Dear anonymous, you will find that the finest academic bullies (or psychopaths) display the following 'qualities':

Glib and superficial charm, grandiose self-worth, need for stimulation or proneness to boredom, pathological lying, conning and manipulativeness, lack of remorse or guilt, shallow affect - emotional poverty, callousness and lack of empathy, parasitic lifestyle, poor behavioral controls, promiscuous sexual behavior, lack of realistic, long-term goals, failure to accept responsibility for own actions, and criminal versatility.

These 'qualities' are identified in both male and female academic managers, occasionally working in partnerships, often feeding from each other as they pursue their rituals of destruction, nepotism and empire-building.

The vast majority of people do not see through the manipulative smile and often consider the bully (psychopath) to be an intelligent and charming person. Academia is full of such trash.