By Sean Coughlan, BBC News education reporter
Students were instructed to exaggerate as "that's what everyone else is doing". University staff have been caught pressuring students to dishonestly answer an official funding council survey of student satisfaction.
Kingston University staff have been recorded instructing students to inflate their responses in the annual National Student Survey. "If Kingston comes down the bottom, the bottom line is that nobody is going to want to employ you," staff warned.
The university says it regrets this "isolated" incident. The audio recording, published on Live! the student news website of Imperial College, London, reveals members of university staff strongly urging students to falsify their responses in this national survey, in order to create a more positive impression for the university.
'It might sound biased...'
"The reason it's important is the results of this survey get fed into a national database which then feed into league tables - and it's the league tables that prospective employers and postgraduate courses use to assess the value of your degree," an unnamed member of staff tells students.
If you think something was a four - my encouragement would be give it a five, because that's what everyone else is doing.
Kingston University staff to students
"If Kingston comes down the bottom, then the bottom line is that nobody is going to want to employ you."
Using an expletive, the member of staff tells students that a poor ranking will make employers think that their degree is without value. The university says the recording is authentic and that it is investigating the identity of the member of staff, which the press office says it believes to be a lecturer.
This National Student Survey was introduced by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) as part of its quality assurance process - "to gather feedback on the quality of students' courses in order to contribute to public accountability".
However the recording from Kingston University shows an attempt to use the survey to manipulate the university's standing.
"In effect you're competing against lots of students at other institutions who also want their university to look good," students are told.
"Although this is going to sound incredibly biased, you rate these things on a five-point scale, if you think something was a four - a 'good' - my encouragement would be give it a five, because that's what everyone else is doing."
'Banging my head'
The recording even shows students being told specific areas in which the university wants to change its "profile" by fixing the results of the survey. The staff member tells students that there is a "dip" in the university's profile in giving students feedback. She says they might be failing to recognise the amount of feedback they are receiving.
"Feedback, in terms of this questionnaire, means what happens in seminars. Every seminar you have you get some interactive feedback from the person giving it. So if I ask a question and no one answers, and I start banging my head on the table, that is feedback.
"If I'm smiling and going 'yeah great', you're getting feedback. If you get a mark for a piece of work, that's what we mean by feedback."
Another member of staff instructs students not to use the survey for negative comments if they are unhappy about the modules they have been taught. "All that garbage you're spewing out about us" should not be included in the National Student Survey.
A spokesperson for Kingston University confirmed that they believed the recording to be genuine. "We believe this to be an isolated incident and regret the inappropriate comments made to students about the National Student Survey, even if these remarks were not intended to be taken entirely literally.
"With regards to disciplinary action, the investigation has yet to be completed so no decision has yet been made on what action should be taken in this case."
The Higher Education Funding Council (Hefce) says it is aware of this incident and believes it to be authentic - and says it takes this "very seriously" - but that it does not invalidate the overall results of the survey.
The importance of this national survey has been emphasised in previous years by the Higher Education Minister, Bill Rammell - who called it a "powerful tool for student empowerment and institutional improvement".
"Academics up and down the country pore over these results to see how they are performing and how what they are offering can be improved," Mr Rammell had said about the survey.
----------------
To download and listen to the recording scroll to the bottom of the web page and click on 'click here to download'.
----------------
Also how the media covered this story:
Your Local Guardian: Kingston University students told to cheat on survey
Daily Mail: University lecturers told students to give them glowing reports or risk a 's**t' degree to boost league table ranking
Times Online: Give us glowing report or get a s**t degree, lecturers tell students
Flisolo: National Student Survey Rigged
Times Higher Education: Students urged to inflate national survey marks to improve job options
Telegraph Online: Kingston University students 'told to lie' to boost rankings
The London Paper: Kingston University lecturers in hot water over telling students to artificially boost ranking scores
NewsPedia.eu: Students claim survey dishonesty
This is Hertfordshire: KINGSTON: Lecturers involved in university lie exposed
Londonist: Kingston Coaxes Suspect Survey Responses
---------------------
And the following - posted on another blog:
Emma said...
May 11, 2008
Workplace bullying: a cross-level assessment
By Joyce Heames and Mike Harvey, University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, USA
Recent studies indicate that workplace bullying behavior is a noteworthy and prevalent issue in organizations around the world (e.g.Demark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Ireland, UK, Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, US, and other countries). A survey conducted in Canada revealed that 78 percent of the respondents felt incivility had worsened in the previous ten years (Pearson, 1999). A survey of 5,000 employees across all sectors of British industry reported that one in ten workers had been bullied in the previous six months causing stress and an estimated 1 million work days lost in production (Keelan, 2000). A study of 9,000 federal employees in the US estimated the cost of workplace bullying and harassment activities to be $180 million in production days annually (Farrell, 2002). In addition, in Iceland, researchers revealed that 8.3 percent of the workforce had experienced and 23.4 percent had witnessed bullying in the six months preceding the study (Olafsson and Johannsdottir, 2004).
…Three avenues of thought have developed around explanations for the inherent characteristics of the workplace bully. One group placed emphasis on the genetic and childhood experiences that lead to workplace bullying. Raine et al. (1994) set forth biological “causes” of aggressive bullying behavior in the workplace. Some support has been shown for the assertion is that the adult bully learned this behavior in childhood, is unable to break the psychological cycle as he or she grows into adulthood, and thus mimics the destructive behavior either at home or in the workplace (Haynie et al., 2001; Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly, 1998).
A second group of academics has looked to the context of the workplace and relational stress issues as being instrumental in provoking deviant behavior such as bullying (Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen and Skogstad, 1996; Heames et al., 2006). Their premise suggests that organizational structure, group norms, status inconsistency, and the resulting strained relationships can contribute to or escalate negative behavior that can lead to bullying. O’Leary-Kelly et al. (1996) conceptualized a model of organization motivated aggression, which focused on actions and outcomes instigated by characteristic and situations in the organization that led to aggressive behaviors. A third faction suggests a combination of innate characteristics and social contexts encourages overt bullying (Espelage et al., 2000). They contend that it is both situational and dispositional with employees’ behavior being governed by both their genetic (natural instincts) and the norms of the workplace (environmental instincts).
Pearson (1999) reported that 46 percent of workers considered quitting because of the increased pressure due to the hostile environments created by bullies and 12 percent did quit their jobs. Although this paper proposes that bullying is felt across other levels of the organization, it appears that the victim as the immediate target endures the most dramatic corollary. The target of repetitive bullying behavior can become personally traumatized and in some cases psychologically scarred for life (Leymann and Gustafsson, 1996; Namie, 2003).
The profile of the individual who is repetitively victimized by a bully can become known in the organization, which in turn, lowers their social standing within the organization and results in an even lower level of self-esteem (Crawford, 1999). Individual and social factors within the organization have been identified for employees that might be considered easy targets for victimization (i.e. low self-esteem, disability, physical weakness, shyness and unassertive personality, lack of friends – especially lack of high powered friends, submissive, low in independence, and introversion) (Aquino and Lamertz, 2004; Smith et al., 2003). All of these characteristics leave the potential victim vulnerable and open for the more aggressive personality of the bully (Aquino and Byron, 2002):
The harmful actions directed against a selected target are often performed deliberately to exercise social control, enhance self-identity, or achieve justice as defined by the actor (the bully) (Felson, 1992, p. 5).
Another central tenet for consideration is the victim’s disposition or outlook on life. A predisposition to negativity lends itself to a victim’s perception and belief that once bullied they will always be bullied (Coyne et al., 2003; Jockin et al., 2001). Negative affectivity (NA) is defined as “the tendency to experience negative emotions across situations and time” (Perrewe´ and Spector, 2002, p. 37). According to Watson and Clark (1984), persons with high NA are prone to focus on the negatives aspects of their personal environment and are less happy with their lives, and may project a meek demeanor. If the victim becomes labeled as a “submissive” and perhaps “deserving of mistreatment”, they can be targets for other aggressive behaviors and may even become the scapegoat for other members of the group (Aquino and Lamertz, 2004). Some victims of repeated serious work stressors such as bullying suffer from post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD), an extreme case of anxiety disorder that affects every aspect of a person’s life and including their mental health (Leymann, 1996)…
It is believed that peers, subordinates, and immediate managers are often frightened and sometimes afraid of retribution from the bully if they try to intervene and thus, may experience self-doubt when faced with such a situation (Bowes-Sperry and O’Leary-Kelly, 2005; Delbecq, 2001). For fear, the bully will turn on and make them the target of his/her destructive behavior, other group members maybe hesitant to voice objection to the behavior or to express concern for the victim. This fear perceived by the observers does not have to be real relative to the ability of the bully to actually retaliate (O’Gorman, 1986). Consequently, self-preservation appears to drive many group members into a mode of silence and acquiescence…
From: http://www.emeraldinsight.com
Recent studies indicate that workplace bullying behavior is a noteworthy and prevalent issue in organizations around the world (e.g.Demark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Ireland, UK, Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, US, and other countries). A survey conducted in Canada revealed that 78 percent of the respondents felt incivility had worsened in the previous ten years (Pearson, 1999). A survey of 5,000 employees across all sectors of British industry reported that one in ten workers had been bullied in the previous six months causing stress and an estimated 1 million work days lost in production (Keelan, 2000). A study of 9,000 federal employees in the US estimated the cost of workplace bullying and harassment activities to be $180 million in production days annually (Farrell, 2002). In addition, in Iceland, researchers revealed that 8.3 percent of the workforce had experienced and 23.4 percent had witnessed bullying in the six months preceding the study (Olafsson and Johannsdottir, 2004).
…Three avenues of thought have developed around explanations for the inherent characteristics of the workplace bully. One group placed emphasis on the genetic and childhood experiences that lead to workplace bullying. Raine et al. (1994) set forth biological “causes” of aggressive bullying behavior in the workplace. Some support has been shown for the assertion is that the adult bully learned this behavior in childhood, is unable to break the psychological cycle as he or she grows into adulthood, and thus mimics the destructive behavior either at home or in the workplace (Haynie et al., 2001; Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly, 1998).
A second group of academics has looked to the context of the workplace and relational stress issues as being instrumental in provoking deviant behavior such as bullying (Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen and Skogstad, 1996; Heames et al., 2006). Their premise suggests that organizational structure, group norms, status inconsistency, and the resulting strained relationships can contribute to or escalate negative behavior that can lead to bullying. O’Leary-Kelly et al. (1996) conceptualized a model of organization motivated aggression, which focused on actions and outcomes instigated by characteristic and situations in the organization that led to aggressive behaviors. A third faction suggests a combination of innate characteristics and social contexts encourages overt bullying (Espelage et al., 2000). They contend that it is both situational and dispositional with employees’ behavior being governed by both their genetic (natural instincts) and the norms of the workplace (environmental instincts).
Pearson (1999) reported that 46 percent of workers considered quitting because of the increased pressure due to the hostile environments created by bullies and 12 percent did quit their jobs. Although this paper proposes that bullying is felt across other levels of the organization, it appears that the victim as the immediate target endures the most dramatic corollary. The target of repetitive bullying behavior can become personally traumatized and in some cases psychologically scarred for life (Leymann and Gustafsson, 1996; Namie, 2003).
The profile of the individual who is repetitively victimized by a bully can become known in the organization, which in turn, lowers their social standing within the organization and results in an even lower level of self-esteem (Crawford, 1999). Individual and social factors within the organization have been identified for employees that might be considered easy targets for victimization (i.e. low self-esteem, disability, physical weakness, shyness and unassertive personality, lack of friends – especially lack of high powered friends, submissive, low in independence, and introversion) (Aquino and Lamertz, 2004; Smith et al., 2003). All of these characteristics leave the potential victim vulnerable and open for the more aggressive personality of the bully (Aquino and Byron, 2002):
The harmful actions directed against a selected target are often performed deliberately to exercise social control, enhance self-identity, or achieve justice as defined by the actor (the bully) (Felson, 1992, p. 5).
Another central tenet for consideration is the victim’s disposition or outlook on life. A predisposition to negativity lends itself to a victim’s perception and belief that once bullied they will always be bullied (Coyne et al., 2003; Jockin et al., 2001). Negative affectivity (NA) is defined as “the tendency to experience negative emotions across situations and time” (Perrewe´ and Spector, 2002, p. 37). According to Watson and Clark (1984), persons with high NA are prone to focus on the negatives aspects of their personal environment and are less happy with their lives, and may project a meek demeanor. If the victim becomes labeled as a “submissive” and perhaps “deserving of mistreatment”, they can be targets for other aggressive behaviors and may even become the scapegoat for other members of the group (Aquino and Lamertz, 2004). Some victims of repeated serious work stressors such as bullying suffer from post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD), an extreme case of anxiety disorder that affects every aspect of a person’s life and including their mental health (Leymann, 1996)…
It is believed that peers, subordinates, and immediate managers are often frightened and sometimes afraid of retribution from the bully if they try to intervene and thus, may experience self-doubt when faced with such a situation (Bowes-Sperry and O’Leary-Kelly, 2005; Delbecq, 2001). For fear, the bully will turn on and make them the target of his/her destructive behavior, other group members maybe hesitant to voice objection to the behavior or to express concern for the victim. This fear perceived by the observers does not have to be real relative to the ability of the bully to actually retaliate (O’Gorman, 1986). Consequently, self-preservation appears to drive many group members into a mode of silence and acquiescence…
From: http://www.emeraldinsight.com
May 10, 2008
Is it worth it?
Are the target’s needs for fairness and justice outweighed by the price paid for challenging an often smug, hurtful culture that will likely outlast any lone individual’s campaign for justice?
May 08, 2008
Taking the HEA to task over accountability
I am writing as a member of the Higher Education Academy academic council. I was elected in October as a representative of the fellows. My platform was highly critical of the HEA leadership. I alleged, inter alia, that the HEA failed to defend academic freedom, values and standards because it listened to "managers" not practitioners. I came first of 92 candidates in the ballot.
Like other contributors to Times Higher Education (Letters, 24 April; 1 May), I am disgusted at the way in which the HEA has behaved towards Lee Harvey. Its leadership has steadily dismantled the democratic checks and balances without which institutional abuses become rife. Shame on it.
An evaluation of the HEA by management consultants Oakleigh Consulting (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2008/rd02_08/) is an eye-opener. At the last meeting of council I submitted a paper recommending "that the board invite some suitably experienced fellows to investigate those aspects of the culture in (HEA) York which have given rise to the dissatisfaction among staff noted in the Oakleigh Report ... and to the critical comments ... which led Oakleigh to conclude that 'this is the sort of issue which gives organisations an unhelpful reputation'".
Council refused. It also refused to put the report or the HEA's "action plan" in response to it on any future agenda of council. This is what the HEA really thinks about "academic input" to the board. It has become an organisation of managers, by managers, for managers.
When the academy abolished its former council (30 members; 16 elected fellows; various powers to determine policy) and replaced it with the "academic council" (15 members; four elected fellows; no powers to determine anything), the CEO claimed that this would "increase the input of academic teachers". Such sophistry is risible, but what is happening to Lee Harvey is no laughing matter. As correspondents have said, what example does this set for universities in this country? What example does it set abroad? What is this supposed to teach students about how to treat colleagues decently in academic debate or in employment?
But colleagues threatening to resign their fellowships should think again. Since the HEA abolished the individual subscription (without consulting council), it has made itself financially unaccountable to fellows. Write letters of complaint to the board instead. Copy the THE thread to them. Force them to see how widely our disgust is shared.
The time has come for an independent inquiry into the way in which the HEA has been governed and managed since it swallowed the Institute for Learning and Teaching. The ILT was far from perfect, but it was collegial, democratic and had a culture of respect for academic freedom and individual academics. Academics and students need such an institution. The HEA is not it.
Philip Burgess, Perthshire
See http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comments.asp?storycode=401505
--------------
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
--------------
Extracts from 'Interim Evaluation of the Higher Education Academy', January 2008:
The leadership and management of the Academy also need to be predicated on more effective internal communication and interaction than hitherto. A more open culture underpinned by delegated management practice must be a key objective in this regard.
The Academy serves the needs of a multi-faceted and multi-layered community of interest. Its approach to communications needs to have the same degree of sophistication, and be better directed and more focused and accessible.
The Academy must recognise that, put simply, it has ‘customers’ – primarily HEIs and individual academics teaching in HE (whether located in HEIs or further education colleges (FECs)) – and that they have needs it exists to serve.
All this demands putting in place a more sophisticated relationship management and communications strategy than has been in evidence to date, supported by proportionately more capable systems and processes. It also calls for a clearer and more coherent business strategy...
All staff, led by SEG and the Chief Executive, should address the development of a more open, responsive and effective culture of communication across the Academy...
It was suggested to us by some staff in the Academy (including members of the Board) and some consultees who interact with the Academy that there is residual dissatisfaction across the Academy’s staff base regarding the process of formation and the style of leadership by some senior managers.
Some of the contributory factors to this appear to have included:
• uncertainties over shifts in some staff roles and remits
• a perceived lack of clarity by some staff of the processes through which decisions regarding the continuation/cessation of project funding streams are made, where this impacts on staff activity.
The extent to which staff feel that they are supported through current line management and project management structures may partially depend on the nature of their roles. For example, some staff suggested that the line management structures for senior advisers and assistant directors are less ‘bedded down’ and thus less clear than for other staffing groups...
-------------
It would seem from the above that the HEA is run like any other HEI... favoritism, nepotism, incompetence, lack of accountability, etc.
Cut it out. Enough of this!
"You know what stops mobbings? Somebody saying, Cut it out. Enough of this."
By Sandra M. Stokes, PhD, professor of education and women’s studies, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and Sheri R. Klein, PhD, professor of art education, University of Wisconsin-Stout
The topic of mobbing has recently received media attention, with some experts believing that instances of mobbing on higher education campuses are increasing. Researchers claim mobbing affects only about 2% to 5% of all workers, but the highest number of mobbing incidents takes place in higher education. Women faculty are the majority of the targets.
What exactly is mobbing? According to authors Noa Davenport, Ruth Schwartz and Gail Elliott in Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace (Civil Society Publishing, 2004):
Mobbing is an emotional assault. It begins when an individual becomes the target of disrespectful and harmful behavior. Through innuendo, rumors, and public discrediting, a hostile environment is created in which one individual gathers others to willingly, or unwillingly, participate in continuous malevolent actions to force a person out of the workplace.
These actions escalate into abusive and terrorizing behavior. The victim feels increasingly helpless when the organization does not put a stop to the behavior or may even plan or condone it.
As a result, the individual experiences increasing distress, illness, and social misery… Resignation, termination, or early retirement—the negotiated voluntary or involuntary expulsion from the workplace—follows. For the victim, death—through illness or suicide—may be the final chapter in the mobbing story.
Financial consequences also can be a part of the mobbing; personnel reviews often are intentionally used to justify little to no salary increases or lack of retention.
How to recognize mobbing
Mobbing can be distinguished from the ordinary storm und drang that sometimes characterizes life in a university. A major characteristic is that the attack made on the target is not made on the actions or words of the faculty member but instead on the faculty member herself.
Other characteristics:
* The target has a record of success.
* The mobbers make up the rules as they go along and do not follow the accepted university due process procedures.
* The timing usually favors the mobbers, such as choosing to attack after the faculty member has had a serious medical procedure.
* The mobbers protest vehemently against any external review of their actions.
* The mobbers attempt to carry out their attacks in complete secrecy, using such tactics as anonymous hate mail left in the target’s mailbox.
* The charges against the target are for relatively minor instances, such as alleging that a faculty member has said certain things that the mobbers find objectionable.
--There is a unanimity of negative opinion about the target.
--The target is selected first and then the charges are brought.
--The mobbers use “impassioned rhetoric” in attacking the target.
--The mobbers spread rumors and gossip about the target.
Mobbing behaviors
Is it your imagination or is it mobbing?
While behaviors vary in scope and intensity, the most common include:
* not speaking to the target (e.g., when the department is assembled for a meeting, everyone is chatting except to the target; when it is time to be seated, everyone moves away from the target)
* downgrading work done by the target while praising work done by everyone else (e.g., giving the target a satisfactory rating for producing a book while giving exceptional ratings to everyone else for little to no productivity)
* filing complaints through faculty grievances based on “lack of collegiality”
* assigning everyone in a department to teach summer courses except the target
* a department chair taking away a course from the target when students complain of too much work instead of backing up the target
* not passing a major addition to a department’s curriculum because it was created by the target
* not including the target in any departmental planning
* conveying untrue allegations against the target to one and all
* letting untenured faculty as well as academic staff know that they should not interact with the target
Gender in mobbing
Research indicates that about 57% of those who are mobbed are women. According to the AFT Wisconsin Local 3535’s Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee, women are targets in 75-80% of all cases of academic mobbing on campuses across the University of Wisconsin system.
Cases at the Wisconsin union include many instances of mobbing against faculty, particularly women faculty, who are outspoken about unethical and unjust situations. These faculty are quite competent and successful, and they be-come targets of mobbers who are threatened by their competence and professional success.
Other factors that determine who gets mobbed:
* Ethical and just people with high standards
* Independent, skilled and bright people with integrity
* Cooperative, “nice” people
* Marginalized or vulnerable people, such as those with a disability, those from another country or those who are somehow unlike everyone else.
Sadly, the perpetrators of mobbing are also often disproportionately women. In fact, according to researcher Linda Shallcross, the technique of mobbing—in which the attacks on a target are sneaky and collective—greatly appeals to women.
Administrators’ role
One characteristic in higher education that especially encourages mobbing is the tendency of administrators and/or campus leaders to ignore or tolerate the mistreatment of the target. Although mobbing can be instigated by a campus leader or administrator, it is always led by someone who has power over a group.
Administrators who are not directly responsible for the mobbing often fail to respond to it, which allows the mobbing to continue until the target gives up and leaves, develops life-threatening medical conditions (most commonly cardiac complications) or commits suicide—as do some 12% of all academics who are mobbed.
Administrators and campus leaders need to become more aware of this phenomenon on their campuses and take action to end it. A faculty member who has conducted years of research on this topic, Kenneth Westhues of the University of Waterloo, has said: “You know what stops mobbings? Somebody saying, ‘Cut it out. Enough of this.’”
What can be done?
If you suspect that you are being mobbed, document everything that is said and done to make you feel this way. Get help from external sources who are knowledgeable about academic mobbing. Find an ally (a colleague, mentor or supervisor) whom you can trust to be a reality check and source of support.
Outside observers can look at situations where attacks are occurring. Are the attacks on the person or on her actions/words? Don’t stand by idly. Make campus leaders aware of the attacks and insist that they take action against the mobbers. Work for anti-mobbing policies on your campus. Don’t allow any one person or group to circumvent normal university due process procedures.
Those who do nothing and tolerate the attacks are jeopardizing not only their own careers, but also those of other smart, effective campus contributors who are likely to be the next targets.
Doing nothing enables the mobbers, so that academic mobbing will continue. It won’t stop until colleagues and administrators say “NO” to mobbing. The consequences of inaction are enormous for everyone, but the real losers in the academy are the students.
From: http://www.wihe.com/printBlog.jsp?id=18929
By Sandra M. Stokes, PhD, professor of education and women’s studies, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and Sheri R. Klein, PhD, professor of art education, University of Wisconsin-Stout
The topic of mobbing has recently received media attention, with some experts believing that instances of mobbing on higher education campuses are increasing. Researchers claim mobbing affects only about 2% to 5% of all workers, but the highest number of mobbing incidents takes place in higher education. Women faculty are the majority of the targets.
What exactly is mobbing? According to authors Noa Davenport, Ruth Schwartz and Gail Elliott in Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace (Civil Society Publishing, 2004):
Mobbing is an emotional assault. It begins when an individual becomes the target of disrespectful and harmful behavior. Through innuendo, rumors, and public discrediting, a hostile environment is created in which one individual gathers others to willingly, or unwillingly, participate in continuous malevolent actions to force a person out of the workplace.
These actions escalate into abusive and terrorizing behavior. The victim feels increasingly helpless when the organization does not put a stop to the behavior or may even plan or condone it.
As a result, the individual experiences increasing distress, illness, and social misery… Resignation, termination, or early retirement—the negotiated voluntary or involuntary expulsion from the workplace—follows. For the victim, death—through illness or suicide—may be the final chapter in the mobbing story.
Financial consequences also can be a part of the mobbing; personnel reviews often are intentionally used to justify little to no salary increases or lack of retention.
How to recognize mobbing
Mobbing can be distinguished from the ordinary storm und drang that sometimes characterizes life in a university. A major characteristic is that the attack made on the target is not made on the actions or words of the faculty member but instead on the faculty member herself.
Other characteristics:
* The target has a record of success.
* The mobbers make up the rules as they go along and do not follow the accepted university due process procedures.
* The timing usually favors the mobbers, such as choosing to attack after the faculty member has had a serious medical procedure.
* The mobbers protest vehemently against any external review of their actions.
* The mobbers attempt to carry out their attacks in complete secrecy, using such tactics as anonymous hate mail left in the target’s mailbox.
* The charges against the target are for relatively minor instances, such as alleging that a faculty member has said certain things that the mobbers find objectionable.
--There is a unanimity of negative opinion about the target.
--The target is selected first and then the charges are brought.
--The mobbers use “impassioned rhetoric” in attacking the target.
--The mobbers spread rumors and gossip about the target.
Mobbing behaviors
Is it your imagination or is it mobbing?
While behaviors vary in scope and intensity, the most common include:
* not speaking to the target (e.g., when the department is assembled for a meeting, everyone is chatting except to the target; when it is time to be seated, everyone moves away from the target)
* downgrading work done by the target while praising work done by everyone else (e.g., giving the target a satisfactory rating for producing a book while giving exceptional ratings to everyone else for little to no productivity)
* filing complaints through faculty grievances based on “lack of collegiality”
* assigning everyone in a department to teach summer courses except the target
* a department chair taking away a course from the target when students complain of too much work instead of backing up the target
* not passing a major addition to a department’s curriculum because it was created by the target
* not including the target in any departmental planning
* conveying untrue allegations against the target to one and all
* letting untenured faculty as well as academic staff know that they should not interact with the target
Gender in mobbing
Research indicates that about 57% of those who are mobbed are women. According to the AFT Wisconsin Local 3535’s Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee, women are targets in 75-80% of all cases of academic mobbing on campuses across the University of Wisconsin system.
Cases at the Wisconsin union include many instances of mobbing against faculty, particularly women faculty, who are outspoken about unethical and unjust situations. These faculty are quite competent and successful, and they be-come targets of mobbers who are threatened by their competence and professional success.
Other factors that determine who gets mobbed:
* Ethical and just people with high standards
* Independent, skilled and bright people with integrity
* Cooperative, “nice” people
* Marginalized or vulnerable people, such as those with a disability, those from another country or those who are somehow unlike everyone else.
Sadly, the perpetrators of mobbing are also often disproportionately women. In fact, according to researcher Linda Shallcross, the technique of mobbing—in which the attacks on a target are sneaky and collective—greatly appeals to women.
Administrators’ role
One characteristic in higher education that especially encourages mobbing is the tendency of administrators and/or campus leaders to ignore or tolerate the mistreatment of the target. Although mobbing can be instigated by a campus leader or administrator, it is always led by someone who has power over a group.
Administrators who are not directly responsible for the mobbing often fail to respond to it, which allows the mobbing to continue until the target gives up and leaves, develops life-threatening medical conditions (most commonly cardiac complications) or commits suicide—as do some 12% of all academics who are mobbed.
Administrators and campus leaders need to become more aware of this phenomenon on their campuses and take action to end it. A faculty member who has conducted years of research on this topic, Kenneth Westhues of the University of Waterloo, has said: “You know what stops mobbings? Somebody saying, ‘Cut it out. Enough of this.’”
What can be done?
If you suspect that you are being mobbed, document everything that is said and done to make you feel this way. Get help from external sources who are knowledgeable about academic mobbing. Find an ally (a colleague, mentor or supervisor) whom you can trust to be a reality check and source of support.
Outside observers can look at situations where attacks are occurring. Are the attacks on the person or on her actions/words? Don’t stand by idly. Make campus leaders aware of the attacks and insist that they take action against the mobbers. Work for anti-mobbing policies on your campus. Don’t allow any one person or group to circumvent normal university due process procedures.
Those who do nothing and tolerate the attacks are jeopardizing not only their own careers, but also those of other smart, effective campus contributors who are likely to be the next targets.
Doing nothing enables the mobbers, so that academic mobbing will continue. It won’t stop until colleagues and administrators say “NO” to mobbing. The consequences of inaction are enormous for everyone, but the real losers in the academy are the students.
From: http://www.wihe.com/printBlog.jsp?id=18929
May 05, 2008
When Whistleblowing Leads to Bullying at Work
By Stig Berge Matthiesen (Associate Professor), Univeristy of Bergen, Norway
Whistleblowing can be defined as the act that takes place when an employee is witnessing wrongdoing in the work place (e.g. unethical conduct, corruption, violence or bullying against others, criminal acts etc.) from a fellow employee or a superior (or a group of employees or superiors), and he or she then tries to stop the wrongdoing by informing a leader or someone who is in the position to stop the wrongdoing. This telling about the wrongdoing may be done internally or externally. In the whistleblowing literature it is common to differentiate between whistleblowing and informing. A whistleblower does not take action with the intent to promote their own career ambitions.
Blowing the whistle concerns important ethical or societal issues, and the whistleblower may feel that he or she does not have the conscience to just keep quiet. Lives may be lost, serious pollution may get out of control, human rights may be seriously violated, or the company may get liquidated, if someone does not take action. On the other hand, if you want to get even with your colleague, or express something negative about him or her to your boss, then you act as an informer, not as a whistleblower. Many, including those in the judicial system, find it difficult to differentiate between acts of whistleblowing and acts of informing. Mixed cases may of course also exist.
Some whistleblowers are rewarded, and gain career promotion. An example of this happened when 3 middle managers were appointed as “name of the year” in USA in December 2002 by Time Magazine. They had reported severe corruption (in the World Com and Enron companies) or criminal neglect (in the FBI system after the 11th of September) to their superiors, in order to stop the wrongdoing. First they were ignored, but they never gave up.
However, some whistleblowers experience the opposite of being rewarded. Ingratitude is the way of the world, they realised instead. Some whistleblowers are exposed to severe bullying after they blew the whistle. They can be met with severe intra group or career sanctions that may lead to major health problems, even to symptoms of PTSD. A typical way of punishing or sanctioning a whistleblower is to meet him or her with tough ostracism, to completely isolate the person from others or from work tasks. Many of whistleblowers are simply sacked from their job, or their work contracts are not renewed. They may even experience that rumours about this “disloyal” worker are spread around, to other companies as well, making it extremely difficult for the person who blew the whistle to obtain another job.
One of the whistleblowers I met as part of my job as a researcher and counsellor in the field of occupational health psychology, Mr. X, worked as a prison officer in a sub-unit of a major prison. In this job he was confronted with many episodes of unethical or criminal acts conducted not by the prisoners, but by his fellow prison officers. A relatively influential group of his colleagues constituted the problem. The organizational culture of the unit, with e.g. severe corruption, was in his opinion out of control. At least this was what he realized after several years with gradual decline of the general professional conduct in the ward. He found this negative development impossible to tolerate. When Mr. X took action and informed the management of the prison, he was treated as a Judas or traitor, not only by his fellow colleagues, but also by the union representatives.
He was then socially isolated, being transferred to another job as an industrial guard in the prison system without being asked about his own opinion. In his “new job” he would not have any regular contact with any colleagues or inmates, as a “persona non grata”. When he was met with the impact of all the sanctions imposed upon him, he suffered a nervous breakdown. The break down turned into a long lasting sick leave. After some years, with several episodes of successive long term sick leave, he was granted disability benefit. After some of his old mental strength had returned, he took his case to the court, but lost.
As part of the judicial process, Mr. X was tested extensively by various psychological tests (MMPI-2, SCL-90, GHQ-30, among those) by 2 expert witnesses (I was one). We, as expert witnesses, also conducted several interviews with him. The psychological tests all revealed the same picture. Mr. X suffered from severe mental health problems (depression, anxiety, concentration difficulties, and bizarre imaginations, among others). About 18 months after the trial ended his case was taken to the appeal court. The story repeats itself – he loosed again.
Did his mental health further deteriorate after such an experience? About 2 months after the last court trial, Mr. X , went through the same kind of psychological screening. All tests revealed that he had recovered his mental strength, quite contrary to my expectations in advance. Mr. X’s own explanation was that even if he lost the court trials, and even after being out of working life against his own will, he had been able through this process to achieve a kind of psychological redress. The judicial process, and all the people he had been in contact with therein, gave him access to extensive moral and social support, he claimed. Suddenly Mr. X was heard and understood by his surroundings. He was no longer confused. Thus, Mr. X now recognized the interconnection between the various things that had occurred in relation to him blowing the whistle. Sense of coherence, shattered assumptions being recovered, cognitive dissonance being replaced by cognitive consonance, are but some of the psychological processes that may explain why Mr. X recovered.
In sum, exposure to bullying and harassment may be the consequences of blowing the whistle on your colleagues or your organization. This may be the case, in particular, in organizations that lack experience with how to handle whistleblowing. A defensive reaction when someone blows the whistle is to “kill the messenger”, instead of preventing or interfering with the alleged acts of wrongdoing.
Poor leadership skills should also be considered as an important intermediate factor when whistleblowing ends with bullying. Usually, the leader will have a (high) work task orientation, combined with a minor (low) level of people orientation. Hence, many whistleblowers may realize that they may be exposed to strong work place sanctions following whistleblowing, such as severe ostracism or even risk of losing their job or any positive or meaningful parts of their current job. Such an unfair and destructive process must be prevented. Still, as seen in the presented case, some of the bullied whistleblowers are able to maintain their mental health irrespective of this, and they may recover. The case of Mr. X may illustrate this. Psychological redress may constitute an important explanation of such mental recovery. As occupational health psychologists, we may have a role to play in that respect.
From: http://www.varslerunionen.no/faktatekst_3.html
Whistleblowing can be defined as the act that takes place when an employee is witnessing wrongdoing in the work place (e.g. unethical conduct, corruption, violence or bullying against others, criminal acts etc.) from a fellow employee or a superior (or a group of employees or superiors), and he or she then tries to stop the wrongdoing by informing a leader or someone who is in the position to stop the wrongdoing. This telling about the wrongdoing may be done internally or externally. In the whistleblowing literature it is common to differentiate between whistleblowing and informing. A whistleblower does not take action with the intent to promote their own career ambitions.
Blowing the whistle concerns important ethical or societal issues, and the whistleblower may feel that he or she does not have the conscience to just keep quiet. Lives may be lost, serious pollution may get out of control, human rights may be seriously violated, or the company may get liquidated, if someone does not take action. On the other hand, if you want to get even with your colleague, or express something negative about him or her to your boss, then you act as an informer, not as a whistleblower. Many, including those in the judicial system, find it difficult to differentiate between acts of whistleblowing and acts of informing. Mixed cases may of course also exist.
Some whistleblowers are rewarded, and gain career promotion. An example of this happened when 3 middle managers were appointed as “name of the year” in USA in December 2002 by Time Magazine. They had reported severe corruption (in the World Com and Enron companies) or criminal neglect (in the FBI system after the 11th of September) to their superiors, in order to stop the wrongdoing. First they were ignored, but they never gave up.
However, some whistleblowers experience the opposite of being rewarded. Ingratitude is the way of the world, they realised instead. Some whistleblowers are exposed to severe bullying after they blew the whistle. They can be met with severe intra group or career sanctions that may lead to major health problems, even to symptoms of PTSD. A typical way of punishing or sanctioning a whistleblower is to meet him or her with tough ostracism, to completely isolate the person from others or from work tasks. Many of whistleblowers are simply sacked from their job, or their work contracts are not renewed. They may even experience that rumours about this “disloyal” worker are spread around, to other companies as well, making it extremely difficult for the person who blew the whistle to obtain another job.
One of the whistleblowers I met as part of my job as a researcher and counsellor in the field of occupational health psychology, Mr. X, worked as a prison officer in a sub-unit of a major prison. In this job he was confronted with many episodes of unethical or criminal acts conducted not by the prisoners, but by his fellow prison officers. A relatively influential group of his colleagues constituted the problem. The organizational culture of the unit, with e.g. severe corruption, was in his opinion out of control. At least this was what he realized after several years with gradual decline of the general professional conduct in the ward. He found this negative development impossible to tolerate. When Mr. X took action and informed the management of the prison, he was treated as a Judas or traitor, not only by his fellow colleagues, but also by the union representatives.
He was then socially isolated, being transferred to another job as an industrial guard in the prison system without being asked about his own opinion. In his “new job” he would not have any regular contact with any colleagues or inmates, as a “persona non grata”. When he was met with the impact of all the sanctions imposed upon him, he suffered a nervous breakdown. The break down turned into a long lasting sick leave. After some years, with several episodes of successive long term sick leave, he was granted disability benefit. After some of his old mental strength had returned, he took his case to the court, but lost.
As part of the judicial process, Mr. X was tested extensively by various psychological tests (MMPI-2, SCL-90, GHQ-30, among those) by 2 expert witnesses (I was one). We, as expert witnesses, also conducted several interviews with him. The psychological tests all revealed the same picture. Mr. X suffered from severe mental health problems (depression, anxiety, concentration difficulties, and bizarre imaginations, among others). About 18 months after the trial ended his case was taken to the appeal court. The story repeats itself – he loosed again.
Did his mental health further deteriorate after such an experience? About 2 months after the last court trial, Mr. X , went through the same kind of psychological screening. All tests revealed that he had recovered his mental strength, quite contrary to my expectations in advance. Mr. X’s own explanation was that even if he lost the court trials, and even after being out of working life against his own will, he had been able through this process to achieve a kind of psychological redress. The judicial process, and all the people he had been in contact with therein, gave him access to extensive moral and social support, he claimed. Suddenly Mr. X was heard and understood by his surroundings. He was no longer confused. Thus, Mr. X now recognized the interconnection between the various things that had occurred in relation to him blowing the whistle. Sense of coherence, shattered assumptions being recovered, cognitive dissonance being replaced by cognitive consonance, are but some of the psychological processes that may explain why Mr. X recovered.
In sum, exposure to bullying and harassment may be the consequences of blowing the whistle on your colleagues or your organization. This may be the case, in particular, in organizations that lack experience with how to handle whistleblowing. A defensive reaction when someone blows the whistle is to “kill the messenger”, instead of preventing or interfering with the alleged acts of wrongdoing.
Poor leadership skills should also be considered as an important intermediate factor when whistleblowing ends with bullying. Usually, the leader will have a (high) work task orientation, combined with a minor (low) level of people orientation. Hence, many whistleblowers may realize that they may be exposed to strong work place sanctions following whistleblowing, such as severe ostracism or even risk of losing their job or any positive or meaningful parts of their current job. Such an unfair and destructive process must be prevented. Still, as seen in the presented case, some of the bullied whistleblowers are able to maintain their mental health irrespective of this, and they may recover. The case of Mr. X may illustrate this. Psychological redress may constitute an important explanation of such mental recovery. As occupational health psychologists, we may have a role to play in that respect.
From: http://www.varslerunionen.no/faktatekst_3.html
May 03, 2008
Leadership or rather the lack of it...
Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers (students, colleagues etc.) stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership.
From "A soldier's way" by Colin Powell. ISBN 0091791995
Now think of your own academic leaders and managers and draw your own conclusions...
May 01, 2008
Kingston University and Student Satisfaction Survey
This is how certain persons (MPEG file) at Kingston University instructed a specific group of students on how to fill in the Student Satisfaction Survey.More specifically, Fiona Barlow-Brown and Fred Vallee-Tourangeau from Kingston University told students that:
• they will be 'hounded' if they do not fill in the survey;
• they will have to logon to computers to fill in the survey (does this guarantee anonymity?);
• if Kingston comes down to the bottom of the table in terms of student satisfaction, nobody would want to employ them because employers will think that their degree is 'shit';
• if they think something on the survey is worth a '4', students are encouraged to make it a '5' because that is what everybody else is doing (beef up the score); and
• the student satisfaction survey is not the place to provide negative feedback for modules that students are not happy with.
Considering the above statements, it is natural to ask a number of questions:
- Does the recommendation that student-satisfaction surveys be made public in an effort to improve the quality of institutions, put pressure on academics and administrative staff to 'manipulate' outcomes?
- In this survey where the scale ranges from 1 to 5, how appropriate is it to tell students that a '4' should be rounded-up to a '5' because everybody else does the same?
- Administering the survey through individual student logon, does not guarantee anonymity. Is this right?
- Do employers look at student satisfaction surveys to determine if a degree is 'shit'?
- Why is not the student satisfaction survey the place to provide negative feedback for modules that students are not happy with?
Lastly, how indicative of the way Kingston University deals with students, is the briefing approach adopted by Fiona Barlow-Brown and Fred Vallee-Tourangeau?
We would appreciate some answers from the HEA, Kingston University, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, UniversitiesUK, and of course the National Union of Students.
------------------
To download and listen to the recording scroll to the bottom of the web page and click on 'click here to download'.
April 29, 2008
We welcome HEA - we can only hope that they have learnt something
We welcome the visit to this blog by the Higher Education Academy on April 29, 2008 at 5:23pm. We can only hope that the HEA had a good look around and discovered the horror stories about institutionalised bullying in some HEIs. If they did, then they'll know that their suspension of a distinguished Professor follows a sad and normal trend. We recommend that those in power within the HEA read some interesting literature about mobbing in academia. In the meanwhile, this blog will continue to expose HEIs that ignore their own policies about dignity at work.
April 27, 2008
Academic freedom is a crucial right that must be maintained
We the undersigned wish to express our deep concern at the attack on academic freedom indicated by the Higher Education Academy’s suspension of Professor Lee Harvey as Director of Research and Evaluation. This appears to be an inappropriate use of disciplinary procedures. Many of us have worked closely with Professor Harvey and know that he has always been deeply committed to improving the quality of the student learning experience. To that end he has never been afraid to raise important issues and encourage thoughtful debate. We fear for the future of academic freedom if academic experts in any area are not allowed to express their considered opinions, even in a personal capacity. We firmly believe that academic freedom is a crucial right that must be maintained; free inquiry is not merely a right; it's a necessary element of any system that strives for progress.
Steve Aldred
Matthew Badcock
Professor David Boyd
Dr Joyce Canaan
Veronica Coatham
Matthew Cremin
Dr Haydn Davies
Gary Hazeldine
Professor Ann Hill (NTF; FHEA)
Dr Jane Hill
Professor Howard Jackson
Dave Keefe
Professor Julian Killingley
Anthony Lewis
Barbara McCalla
Alan Mabbett
Dr Bill Madhill
Dr Rob Mawby
Professor Chris Painter
Bill Roper
Professor John Rouse
Professor Douglas Sharp
Greta Shields
Cynthia Slater
Professor Philip Smallwood
Dr George Smith
Dr Neil Staunton
Graham Wright
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
Steve Aldred
Matthew Badcock
Professor David Boyd
Dr Joyce Canaan
Veronica Coatham
Matthew Cremin
Dr Haydn Davies
Gary Hazeldine
Professor Ann Hill (NTF; FHEA)
Dr Jane Hill
Professor Howard Jackson
Dave Keefe
Professor Julian Killingley
Anthony Lewis
Barbara McCalla
Alan Mabbett
Dr Bill Madhill
Dr Rob Mawby
Professor Chris Painter
Bill Roper
Professor John Rouse
Professor Douglas Sharp
Greta Shields
Cynthia Slater
Professor Philip Smallwood
Dr George Smith
Dr Neil Staunton
Graham Wright
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I went to Kingston uni first as an undergraduate and then as a PhD student. This behaviour is very typical of the staff mentioned, particualry Fiona. Fiona is engaged to the Head of Psychology and thinks she can get away with everything as a result. When I was working as a memebr of staff whilst doing my PhD this was the kind of thing she would ask us to do.
There is so much favouritism at this uni and many staff are unhappy.
Fiona once told me to give a student a low mark because she kept complaining. She should be sacked for this but because of her fiance being so high up in the uni it probably won't happen.