Almost 17 per cent of academics at De Montfort University said they had been bullied - What about the other HEIs?

Almost 17 per cent of academics at De Montfort University said they had been bullied at work, in an internal staff survey. The survey also found that bullying among technical and other non-academic staff was reported by one in ten respondents.

Of the 1,061 staff who took part in the survey earlier this year, 169 of the participants, about 15 per cent, said they were "always, often or sometimes bullied" at work. Among the 433 academics to respond, 72 of them, or 16.6 per cent, agreed with this statement.

However, in a report detailing the findings, obtained by Times Higher Education, the university says the figures are significantly lower than levels of workplace bullying across all sectors nationally, and the number of De Montfort academics reporting bullying has fallen from 19.45 per cent in 2006.

The survey is based on a Health and Safety Executive framework to measure workplace stress, defined as "the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demand placed on them".

Results are graded from one to five, with one the poorest score, as well as by a "traffic light" system, in which amber indicates a "clear need for improvement" and red "urgent action now". Of the seven main categories covered by the poll, including broad areas such as the level of "control" staff felt they had, De Montfort was given an amber grade in five and a red in one, getting a good score in one of the seven.

Of all the groups taking part, academics were the least satisfied with working conditions, although their responses were a slight improvement on those of two years ago. The need for urgent action was identified in areas including the extent to which staff felt able to cope with demands on their time, the level of control over the way they worked, levels of "emotionally demanding" work and support from colleagues.

Academics also gave low ratings to the respect they received from colleagues, to clarity over what was expected of them at work and the goals of their departments.

A De Montfort spokesman said: "We take the results of the survey seriously and are keen to ensure the wellbeing of our staff. We have implemented a university-wide 'wellbeing' group, which includes the university's trade union safety representatives, to promote employee wellbeing initiatives.

"We are also one of the first universities to have implemented a body map system, which enables the early identification of potential symptoms relating to stress. Our most recent staff survey showed that 79 per cent of staff would recommend the university as a good place to work."

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

Kingston University - London

Kingston University is a concentration camp... hundreds of thousands of pounds are wasted in fighting legal cases against good academics who are being bullied out of their jobs. Does anybody care that a serial bully university is wasting money and resources in such a fashion? Does nobody have the decency to stand up to this monster bully and say 'enough is enough'? And so more and more continue to suffer, to be victimised, to be bullied out of their work - many work in fear, in a concentration camp that knows only one thing: to eliminate any dissent. No compassion, no empathy, no mediation... just fear... This is how Sir Peter Scott runs his show.

HEFCE and the Code of Conduct

We received from an anonymous post the following contribution:

In a HEFCE report from May 2007, titled 'Accountability for higher education institutions - New arrangements from 2008', I quote:

Code of governance
20. The financial statements include a statement on internal control and/or a corporate governance statement. We believe this should incorporate or clearly reflect the Code of Governance published by the Committee of University Chairmen (CUC), which all institutions say they have adopted. This provides external assurance that the effectiveness of corporate governance is subject to regular review, and thus adds confidence to the accountability returns generated by institutions.

Internal audit and audit committee annual reports
21. These reports are crucial in the accountability framework in that they provide the fundamental assurances to confirm that internal control is effective, and value for money is being achieved. We will require these returns to be submitted during December, ideally at the same time as the financial statements. Again, if individual institutions wish to submit these returns earlier in 2007 this would be welcomed. These reports should also reflect the CUC Code of Governance.

From the above it would seem that HEFCE strongly recommends that the CUC Code of Governance should apply to universities in terms of their financial dealings and audits, but does HEFCE require universities to adopt the CUC code of contact for the independent review of staff grievances?

I quote from the CUC Code of Governance for universities:

8.14 The Second Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that institutions should establish a system of independent review for all staff, to be invoked when internal avenues for resolving a staff grievance have been exhausted. In pre-1992 HEIs which have a Visitor, this recommendation is partly met by the provision that complaints, other than in employment matters, may be determined by the Visitor on petition from a member of the HEI. This provision does not, however, cover all categories of staff because normally only academic staff, and in some instances academic-related staff, are classed as members of the HEI...

What is the HEFCE expectation(s) from post-1992 HEIs in terms of availability of systems of independent review of staff grievances?

8.15 The passage of the Human Rights Act in October 2000 has raised new questions about the need for independent review mechanisms, including whether the Visitor system, as currently operated, fully meets the Act's requirements. This matter is still under consideration by Universities UK and where the Visitorial powers are exercised on behalf of the Queen by the Privy Council or the Lord Chancellor's Department by the respective officers of the Crown themselves...

Universities UK do not seem to have released any information on this matter since 2000! Back to the original question, what systems (if any) of independent review of staff grievances exist in post-1992 HEIs?
----------------
Reply from HEFCE:

1) Does HEFCE require universities to adopt the CUC code of contact for the independent review of staff grievances?

No, HEFCE does not require universities to adopt the CUC code of conduct. This is explained in the Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK, November 2004/40a on page 5:

"This Code is voluntary and is intended to reflect good practice in a sector which comprises a large number of very diverse institutions. Institutions should state that they have regard to the Code, and where an institution's practices are not consistent with particular provisions of the Code an explanation shall be published in the corporate governance statement of the annual audited financial statements."

2) What is the HEFCE expectation(s) from post-1992 HEIs in terms of availability of systems of independent review of staff grievances?

We do not have specific expectation(s). As the guide explains in part II, 1.10 Human Resource Management:

"The governing body has responsibility for the institution's human resource and employment policy. This includes ensuring that pay and conditions of employment are properly determined and implemented for all categories of employee. The governing body is also responsible for appointing and setting the terms and conditions for the head of the institution and such other senior posts as it may from time to time determine."

3) What systems (if any) of independent review of staff grievances
exist in post-1992 HEIs?

Institutions are likely to have their own tailored systems. We have not conducted any studies on the various systems in place and as you have already noted the relevant sections from the 'Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK' November 2004/40 are part III, p.62 8.14 and 8.15.

Higher education institutions are legally independent corporate institutions. The governing body is responsible for ensuring the effective management of the institution and for planning its future development. It has ultimate responsibility for the affairs of the institution.
-----------------
Thank you anonymous contributor... So, there you have it from the horse's mouth: HEFCE has not conducted any studies on the various systems in place; The governing body is responsible for ensuring the effective management of the institution, and HEFCE does not require universities to adopt the CUC code of conduct.

Workplace bullying in Loughborough University

This is an appeal to anyone who may have specific information about workplace bullying in Loughborough University.

If you know of specific instances or are able to provide details, we ask that you forward this information to us, which we will then forward to a journalist.

We will be VERY vigilant in ensuring the confidentiality of such reporting and will reveal as little or as much of the identify of the affected/reporting parties as desired.

Please forward your info to: bullied.academics@yahoo.co.uk

Researchers have no 'right' to study terrorist materials. Nottingham v-c warns that academics may face prosecution.

Academics have no "right" to research terrorist materials and they risk being prosecuted for doing so, the vice-chancellor of the University of Nottingham has told his staff.

In a statement issued to the university last week, Sir Colin Campbell says: "There is no 'right' to access and research terrorist materials. Those who do so run the risk of being investigated and prosecuted on terrorism charges. Equally, there is no 'prohibition' on accessing terrorist materials for the purpose of research. Those who do so are likely to be able to offer a defence to charges (although they may be held in custody for some time while the matter is investigated). This is the law and applies to all universities."

Sir Colin issued the statement to advise staff to note "additional points" that have emerged since the arrest in May of a Nottingham masters student and a clerk on suspicion of possessing extremist material.

The student, Rizwaan Sabir, who is studying Islamic terrorism, said he had downloaded a copy of an al-Qaeda training manual for use in his MA dissertation and PhD application and had forwarded it to the administrator, Hicham Yezza, for printing. After six days in detention, neither was charged.

Sir Colin referred to a letter of advice issued to Mr Sabir by the police after his release. The letter warned Mr Sabir that he risked re-arrest if found with the manual again and added: "The university authorities have now made clear that possession of this material is not required for the purpose of your course of study nor do they consider it legitimate for you to possess it for research purposes."

Sir Colin says in his statement: "It is understood that the police drafted this letter having considered all of the statements made by a range of university staff and they also consulted their legal advisers on it."

He adds: "We have been advised that the document in question was one which others have been arrested and prosecuted for possessing. Different versions of the 'al-Qaeda Training Manual' exist but in this case the document was an operational or tactical manual rather than a political or strategic document. The police are clear that such a document, which included detailed instructions, is therefore likely to be useful to someone preparing an act of terrorism."

Mr Sabir's personal tutor Bettina Renz, a lecturer in international security, and his MA supervisor, Rod Thornton, a terrorism specialist and former soldier, have both said they told police that Mr Sabir's possession of the document was legitimate given his research interests.

Since his release without charge, Mr Sabir has been accepted to study for a PhD in radical Islam at Nottingham under Dr Thornton's supervision. His doctorate application proposes an analysis of Islamic terrorists' military and political strategy "based on primary documents, including reports published by think-tanks and research centres and documentation published or released by Islamist groups (strategic and political statements, military manuals, group manifestos and charters)".

Mr Sabir insisted to Times Higher Education that he had downloaded his version of the al-Qaeda manual from a US government website and that it was still freely available on the internet. He said he was now unclear what he could and could not legitimately research for his PhD, given the police and the university's warning.

Vanessa Pupavac, lecturer in international relations at Nottingham, said: "The university suggests it is illegitimate to study the operational or the tactical as opposed to the political or strategic dimension of al-Qaeda." Scholars were interested in both dimensions, she argued. "A major theme of security studies is how the parties in the so-called war on terror lack clear political and strategic goals. Contemporary terrorism emphasises the operational and tactical over the political. Consider the 9/11 or 7/7 or the Beslan terrorists - their violent tactics were starkly evident, but their political and strategic goals were vague."

Nottingham's MA in international security and terrorism includes a module on terrorism and counterterrorism. Essay titles for this academic year include: "Choose one terrorist group and analyse its motivations, techniques, tactics and procedures" and "How is today's terrorism conducted?"

Sir Colin's statement says the university's response to the arrests and their aftermath "have been discussed at meetings of senate and council. Both bodies have fully endorsed the actions taken by the university."

Hicham Yezza, the clerk arrested with Rizwaan Sabir, was re-arrested on immigration-related grounds after his release and was due to be deported until proceedings were stayed pending judicial review.

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

Twilight of Academic Freedom

Quote: "...They just disappear and nobody notices that they gone..."

Divestors of People - The Hall of Shame

The Criteria

1. Lack of strategy to improve the under-performance of the institution. This does not exist, is not clearly defined, or is not communicated to staff.

2. There is lack of coherent investment in staff development.

3. Whatever strategies exist to manage staff, these are implemented to promote cronyism, incompetence, favoritism, or inequality, and to disguise management failures.

4. The capabilities managers need to learn and manage staff are not defined. Managers received little or no training to improve their communication, behaviour and people skills.

5. Managers are ineffective in leading, managing, and developing staff. High levels of over-management or under-management.

6. Staff are not encouraged to take ownership and responsibility through involvement in decision-making. There is no accountability and transparency in the decision making process.

7. Staff are demorilised, de-skilled or demoted. The working environment is toxic.

8. Lack of improvements in managing people is chronic.

9. The working environment shows high levels of work-related stress.

10. Internal grievance procedures are used selectively by managers - against staff. Some managers are untouchable despite their failures.

11. Staff report high levels of bullying and harassment by managers. Fear prevails among the silent majority.

12. The governing body is detached from the staff and is in the same bed with the management. Governors show no visible interest in the affairs of the staff.

Nominations are open to all staff in all universities. Institutions qualify for the ‘Divestors of People’© award if they meet at least 50% of the above criteria and this can be verified by at least two different staff members from the same organisation. Nominators can remain anonymous.

Conditions for a university or college to be removed from the Hall of Shame

* Public admission of wrongdoing.

* Public promise to correct wrongdoings by changes in personnel (including getting rid of the bullies and reinstating the targets, if they wish to be).

* Public apologies to all targets.

* Payment of compensation to targets of bullies, especially providing guaranteed private medical
coverage for life to all targets affected.

* Setting up a scholarship/bursary fund aimed at deserving undergrad/postgrad students who have shown courage in standing up to larger forces in the name of justice.

* Public recognition of staff who stood up against the bullies and supported the target.

* Removal of Governors who failed to act.

Check the Hall of Shame.

The Abilene Paradox - Why Team Members Won't or Can't Help

The Abilene Paradox - Why Team Members Won't or Can't Help

If groups (call them work teams) are powerful enough to bend individuals to their will, to get inside individuals' heads and make them doubt their own competence, to make them do things that hurt themselves, then logic would dictate that fellow workers who see a bully hurting someone would run to the rescue. Right? Wrong!

The strange tale of people acting in groups and influencing individuals now gets stranger. For many reasons, people witnessing the injustice of workplace bullying rarely act. They either will not act, by choice, or can not act, for reasons often unknown to them and to the target who could certainly use their help...

Abilene Paradox

Jerry Harvey honored his Texas roots when he named this phenomenon. The group dynamic is perhaps the most relevant to understanding why bullies can be witnessed by so many people and still get away with it. Imagine a committee of bright people making a stupid decision. We know from talking with each person alone that each and every one of them thinks it's a stupid thing to do. When the committee votes, however, they choose to do the stupid thing!

Later, usually much later, when the decision backfires, the committee tears itself apart in its search for a culprit. The group desperately needs someone or something to blame, long after the very preventable decision was made. This describes a group in agreement, not in conflict. They all agree privately, and individually, about the true state of affairs. They do not communicate their feelings to one another, however. Then publicly, in the presence of each other, they all deny the agreement that they don't know exists among them. That's the paradox: private vs. public versions of reality. In fact, this is the mismanagement of agreement, not disagreement. It's all made possible by a public silence regarding what each individual knows to be true. Sound like where you work?

Take the bullying example. All the co-workers of the bully's target know what is happening. If interviewed alone and free from retaliation, each would deplore the obvious pain the target is experiencing. However, in group settings, even without the bully present, they don't do the right thing. When together, they don't plan how to use their group power to overcome a lone bully. Instead, they ignore the rampant mistreatment by not communicating their positions or feelings publicly.

If the target later pursues legal action and investigators on her behalf interview the team that made up the hostile environment, the finger pointing begins. Why does this happen?

Jerry Harvey traces it to people's overblown negative fantasies. That is, they imagine the worst possible, riskiest outcome from confronting the bully--they would lose their jobs, the bully would turn on them, they would have a heart attack, the bully would kill their children, and so on. With a mind full of negative thoughts like these, mostly about events that would never occur, the individuals act very conservatively as a group. As a group, they want to take no risk. So, they do the wrong thing, all for lack of talking about it openly. They let bad things happen to the target that they believe, as individuals, should not happen. Sick? No, simply human nature's aversion to risk thanks to an exaggerated imagination that limits thinking about possibilities.

"Abilene" is the Texas city in the Abilene paradox. It refers to the retelling by Harvey of a lousy decision by his family. On a hot summer day, the family piled into a car without airconditioning and drove too many to Abilene to try a new diner. The heat was oppressive; the food was lousy. But no one dared to speak in those terms until later that night back home. Finally, the matriarch of the family broke the silence by complaining about the food. Then everyone chimed in with their complaint--the car was hot, it was stupid to try an unknown restaurant.

It turns out that no one wanted to go in the first place, but no one said so when it mattered. Eventually, they all blamed the father for suggesting the drive. To Harvey, whenever a group is about to do the wrong thing, despite knowing it's the wrong thing, it is a group "on the road to Abilene."

Silent, inactive witnesses to the bullying of others is a group "on the road to Abilene."

From: Workplace Bullying Institute

The Seven Principles of Pulbic Life - Higher Education

From: Summary of Nolan Committee's Second Report (1996)

Summary of the Nolan Committee's First Report on Standards in Public Life

Selflessness
Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.

Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.

Objectivity
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.

Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Openness
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

Leadership
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

These principles apply to all aspects of public life. The Committee has set them out here for the benefit of all who serve the public in any way.

Higher and Further Education

The systems of governance in the higher and further education sectors reflect both the origins of the institutions and of recent legislation. The 'old' universities are governed by charter or specific Act of Parliament. Former polytechnics became 'new' universities as a result of the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act, which also set down the system of governance for further education institutions. In addition to providing resources, funding councils for the sectors have a role in regulation and dissemination of best practice.

Many of the institutions have evolved systems of governance over many years and it would require evidence of substantial misconduct to justify sweeping changes. We received no such evidence. However, we urge institutions to review their practices and procedures in the light of best practice identified in this report. We believe it is particularly important for institutions to follow best practice in limiting the use made of commercial confidentiality and in explaining themselves to their communities.

While the principle of academic freedom is applicable to the right of individuals to pursue research and express opinions without political pressure, it does not justify a lower level of accountability for higher education institutions. Our recommendations on confidentiality clauses, appeals, disputes and whistleblowing tackle those aspects of academic freedom which are relevant to our terms of reference.

R3. Appointments to the governing bodies of universities and colleges should be made on the basis of merit, subject to the need to achieve a balance of relevant skills and backgrounds on the board.

R4. The automatic representation of the TECs and LECs on college governing bodies should be ended.

R5. Individual universities and colleges should be encouraged to set out key information to a common standard in their annual reports or equivalent documents where they do not already do so. Material on governance should be included in the annual reports or equivalents of further and higher education institutions. Representative bodies should take the lead in promoting this with the support of the funding councils.

R6. Representative bodies, with the help of the funding councils, should produce a common standard of good practice on the limits of commercial confidentiality, and should encourage all institutions to be as open as possible subject to those limits. All institutions should have publicly available registers of interests.

R7. Institutions of higher and further education should make it clear that the institution permits staff to speak freely and without being subject to disciplinary sanctions or victimisation about academic standards and related matters, providing that they do so lawfully, without malice, and in the public interest.

R8. Where it is absolutely necessary to include confidentiality clauses in service and severance contracts, they should expressly remind staff that legitimate concerns about malpractice may be raised with the appropriate authority (the funding council, National Audit Office, Visitor, or independent review body as applicable) if this is done in the public interest.

R9. Students in higher education institutions should be able to appeal to an independent body, and this right should be reflected in the Higher Education Charters.

R10. The higher education funding councils, institutions, and representative bodies should consult on a system of independent review of disputes. A similar process of consultation should be undertaken by the equivalent further education bodies.

R11. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment should re-examine the practice of appointing vice-chancellors and principals of English institutions to the board of HEFCE to determine whether an alternative exists, which avoids perceived conflicts of interest, and to ensure that existing rules protect against any potential conflict of interest as the council is presently constituted.
---------------------
From: The Association of University Administrators (promoting excellence in HE management), revised July 7, 2005

...University administrators must strike a balance between the needs of a number of stakeholders. They are responsible in many ways for the welfare of our institutions, for the interests of staff and students...

The seven principles will not have an impact unless everyone from board level down understands the framework of behaviours that is expected of them...

Individual values can be put to the test as a result of a tension with the corporate values of the institution as a result, for example, of:

pressure to cross the threshold between exploiting the rules of funding regimes and unacceptable misrepresentation of data

the intensification of competition internationally not only for students but also for research achievement

the development of extreme forms of managerialism

the increased emphasis on PR, marketing and presentation, and the extent to which this can lead to pressures for inaccurate 'spin' and 'hype'...

The work of the Nolan (now Neill) Committee on Standards in Public Life, emphasises the need for all those working in higher education to observe the highest standards of professionalism. The... code of professional standards is a welcome development in achieving and sustaining this goal...

The canary down the mine: what whistleblowers' health tells us about their environment

The typical whistleblower's health is very poor. In a survey I did in 1993, reported in the British Medical Journal (1), 29 of the 35 subjects had an average of 3.6 symptoms at the time of the survey. Though high, this was less than the average of 5.3 at the time they blew the whistle. The most common were difficulty sleeping, anxiety, panic attacks, depression, and feelings of guilt and unworthiness. They also suffered from nervous diarrhoea, trouble breathing, stomach problems, loss of appetite, loss of weight, high blood pressure, palpitations, hair loss, grinding teeth, nightmares, headaches, tiredness, weeping, tremor, urinary frequency, 'stress', and 'loss of trust'. Fifteen subjects (i.e. over half of those with symptoms) were now on medication they had not been on before blowing the whistle - for depression, stomach ulcers, and high blood pressure.

The reason for this poor state of health is clear. They had suffered intense victimization at work, being made redundant, demoted, dismissed, or pressured to resign; their position was abolished, or they were transferred. While still in the workplace they were isolated, physically and personally; were given impossible tasks to perform, menial work, or no work at all; were subjected to constant scrutiny and verbal abuse, forced to see psychiatrists, threatened with defamation actions and disciplinary actions; were constantly criticised, fined, subjected to internal inquiries, adverse reports; and received death and other threats. The most common outcome was to resign because of ill health caused by the victimization. The treatment they receive appears to be standard, and is described in more detail, for example, by Bill de Maria in his large survey of Queensland whistleblowers. (2)

As a result of what happened they also suffered severe financial loss. Only eight of the 35 subjects had not suffered any loss of income; in twelve cases their income was reduced by over 75%. They faced large medical, other, and particularly legal costs, and in over half the cases their estimated total financial loss was in hundreds of thousands of dollars...

It has become clear that we can, even without doing further formal studies of the organization, learn a great deal about it from an examination of the whistleblower's health and the organization's reactions to it. This brings us to the canary, used for detecting toxic or explosive gases in coal-mines, before there was a better way to do it. More sensitive to such gases than humans, they would collapse long before the miners were affected, and a collapsed canary was therefore a signal to the miners to get out immediately, and to management to look at the problem and clean up the mine. If we think of the victimized whistleblower as a poisoned canary - and clearly there are strong parallels here - the typical reaction of management is interesting and instructive. They don't say 'we've got a problem here, let's fix it before we have a disaster', but start bad-mouthing the canary. It has a personality disorder, they say, or is faking it to get compo; was sick before it went down the mine; or - more simply - is a no-good ratbag troublemaker.

Just as the victimization that causes the canary to collapse is standard from one organization, state, or even country to another, so is management's explanation for the canary's state of health. And remembering what the canary's state really means to the mine and those in it, the response is not at all what we would expect from a manager who cared about the miners, or even about the reputation and hence the profits of the company. But the reaction to the canary is representative of the organization's response as a whole. Typically the response is orchestrated and powerful - 'crushing' is the word most victims use to describe it. It usually involves the whistleblower's union or other potential supports, and it rewards the deviant(s) while penalizing the whistleblower. The pattern seen now in hundreds of cases shows this classical response means the activity the whistle was blown on is endemic and tacitly accepted within the organization...

Other indicators of widespread involvement of the bureaucratic system are the standard techniques used to cover up. Word-processor 'stuff-off' letters are the rule, as is a 3 to 6-month delay in replying. Threats of defamation suits are used to keep impecunious whistleblowers quiet, while rich and powerful organizations defame them with impunity - in quiet chats and secret memos, negative work and medical reports, confidential Board and Cabinet minutes, and in Parliament. The legal system's delays are used to the full, so the issues cannot be publicly discussed for years because they are 'sub judice', then can't be exposed because they are no longer news. There are phony 'inquiries', by people appointed by the employer, and dependent on them for further employment. Sometimes the 'wrong' person is appointed, and does a proper job regardless, but more often they do what they are paid to do...

From: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/Lennane_canary.html