Don’t sue–run for your lives! Part II

This post is a follow-up to yesterday’s post, which was about workplace bullies and the ways in which they can come to dominate a work environment by driving away some people while turning those who remain into bullies themselves. According to Robert Sutton, “[R]esearch on emotional contagion, and on abusive supervision in particular, finds that if you work with or around a bunch of nasty and demeaning people, odds are you will become one of them.” This describes many of the people I worked with in my first tenure-track job, which I resigned seven years ago.

My major foe at my former university was someone who was tenured but simultaneously (and humiliatingly) denied her promotion to Associate Professor. She had published a book after all in a department that didn’t require a book, whereas men in the department had recently been promoted to Associate Professor before tenure and, in one case, without a book at all. (That’s right: men without books? Can’t wait to promote you! Women with books? Wait a year or two, then apply again.) There was a whole class of women assistant professors who got that treatment right around the time I was hired, either within their department or at the college review level. Need I point out that the curious creature known as the tenured Assistant Professor was a pink-collar only rank? Unfortunately, this individual’s experience resulted not in anger and radicalization, but in shame and internalization, which was then directed outward not at the people who caused her misery, but at other targets below her on the hierarchy.

This was a pattern that repeated itself many times in that department. People were filled with ressentiment about the way they were treated, and most of them either became bullies or apologists, explaining that “don’t worry, you’ll still be tenured. That’s just the way we do things. Everyone goes through it, so you’ll just have to suck it up.” There were a few good people who tried to make changes–but they have been easily defeated by the others. Those who were my friends and allies were valiant in their optimism and their commitment to change, but in the meantime, what a life: stomping out flaming bags of poop that someone else is leaving on yet someone else’s doorstep.

One of the effects of this kind of work culture is that it stifles new ideas, fresh methodologies, and innovative research and pedagogy, because of the rate of turnover among those who leave, and the inner turmoil suffered by those who stay. (Bullying academic departments tend not to allow Assistant Professors to follow their own bliss, either in the classroom or in their research agendas. This is sometimes the very motive for the bullying: many departments really don’t want anything–or anyone–new or innovative around. And, scrutinizing other people’s work to belittle it is one of the pleasures of academic bullying!) Unsurprisingly, women’s history and histories of other not-dominant groups and historically marginalized perspectives have a hard time gaining purchase in an environment like that. For example: Historiann was hired to be the American women’s historian in that department, a position that had been a tenure track line for thirteen years but one that had never seen anyone progress to tenure. (Historiann was number five in the long line of historians who had held that position.) And guess what, girls and boys? Twenty-four years later, no one yet has been tenured in that line! That’s right: success beyond anyone’s wildest antifeminist dreams in 1984, when the position was first established. Of course, the fact that that position was the only line dedicated to women’s history was doubtless a major factor behind the abuse and harassment suffered by all of the historians who hopped on and off that merry-go-round.

So, who says cheaters never prosper? Bullies may not be happy people, but it seems to me that they get what they want, and that really sucks. (The woman described above is probably one of the unhappiest people I’ve ever had the misfortune to know–a truly wretched creature.) But what might suck more is staying in an abusive job because you’re determined to be SuperProf who’s going to vindicate herself and save her department of its destructive culture. We don’t encourage people in abusive relationships to believe they can make the abuser change–why should we expect people in bullying work environments to stick around and try to change the culture, when they have little if any power or influence to force reform?

The million-dollar question is, of course, how can anyone turn a bad department into a good one? Who can get control over bullying work environments and force change upon them? My sense is that it takes a strong-willed dean who’s not afraid of the bullies and who’s got a healthy budget to clean house with brutal post-tenure reviews (including perhaps buyouts), and to support lots of new hires. But–in the arts and humanities–what deans have that kind of time or money, outside of elite universities and SLACs, where the humanities are central rather than marginal to the identity of the institution? My guess is that most departments have to shift for themselves, so how do good people leverage their goodness to isolate, marginalize, and/or drive out the bad?

From: http://www.historiann.com

The formula...

Witness Intimidation Declared Legal by Crown Prosecution Service

In January, 2007, solicitors for Dr Howard Fredrics, claimant in a pending case before the Employment Tribunal of whistleblower victimization, disability discrimination and unfair dismissal informed his former employer, Kingston University, that Mrs Lori Fredrics, who had attended the proceedings on behalf of her husband, who had become ill, had inadvertently recorded several tea breaks during an internal grievance appeal held before the University’s Board of Governors. The recordings allegedly contained statements by the Governors, Personnel Director, University Secretary and Vice Chancellor that were of an inappropriately pejorative and prejudicial nature and which suggested that the Governors had no intention of hearing the facts of the case in an impartial and unbiased fashion. Clearly, the University would be quite embarrassed were this damaging evidence of corruption to see the light of day in open court.

Instead of admitting wrongdoing, the University’s response was to have its University Secretary, Mr Donald Beaton, send a series of allegedly threatening and intimidating letters to Dr and Mrs Fredrics and to their solicitor in which Mr Beaton accused them of having committed crimes in the collection of evidence, and accused their solicitor of having been “complicit” in the commission of these alleged crimes. Mr Beaton threatened to report Dr and Mrs Fredrics and their solicitor to the Information Commissioner for criminal prosecution under the Data Protection Act 1998 and to seek a court injunction with attached costs unless Dr and Mrs Fredrics turned over all copies of the recordings and transcripts thereof.

Dr and Mrs Fredrics, not being legally qualified, were terrified by these letters, believing that they might, indeed, have inadvertently committed the crimes alleged by Mr Beaton, who cited all sorts of obscure provisions of the law to justify his accusations of criminal wrongdoing. At the time, they were residing in virtual exile in the US, having lost their right to live and work in the UK after Dr Fredrics’ dismissal, where they were awaiting the outcome of Dr Fredrics’ application for Highly Skilled Migrant visa status. Their immigration solicitor advised them that were they to be charged with a crime or even simply reported to the Information Commissioner, they could very well be barred from entering the UK, where they had all their worldly possessions, including their 21-year old cat. Not having access to a criminal solicitor, they remained in a state of panic for several months until Dr Fredrics’ visa was approved and they were able to return to the UK.

Once they returned to the UK, they sought legal advice and were told that Mr Beaton’s accusations were entirely without merit, that they had done nothing illegal and that they were simply the victims of witness intimidation. Mr Beaton and the University took no action as they had threatened to do, and Dr and Mrs Fredrics held on to the recordings and transcripts, as to turn over all copies would be to risk their becoming compromised or destroyed altogether.

The next step for Dr and Mrs Fredrics was to seek redress and a stop to the alleged ongoing acts of intimidation by filing criminal charges against Mr Beaton. Thus after a hearing on the facts, a panel of three Magistrates duly advised by the Clerk of the Court issued a summons on 20 April 2007 to Mr Beaton to appear to answer charges of Witness Intimidation, a violation of the Criminal Justice and Police Act of 2001.

Once the charges were filed and the summons issued, Mr Beaton allegedly continued through his solicitors to send intimidating letters to Dr and Mrs Fredrics, despite the fact that their solicitors explicitly wrote to Mr Beaton’s solicitors asking that no further direct approaches be made to Dr and Mrs Fredrics. Accompanying a letter of 1 May were copies of one of the earlier letters sent by Mr Beaton to Dr and Mrs Fredrics. Interestingly, this letter contained a dated fax header, which was clearly marked “Office of the Vice-Chancellor”. The date of the header was 6 March 2007, the date of one of Mr Beaton’s letters to Dr and Mrs Fredrics, and prior to their having filed charges against Mr Beaton. This gave rise to Dr and Mrs Fredrics’ suspicion that the University’s Vice-Chancellor, Prof Peter Scott, had been aware of the sending of these letters and that he had in all likelihood authorized their sending, which would, therefore, implicate him in the acts of Witness Intimidation. Given that Prof Scott had been recently nominated by the Prime Minister for a Knighthood, it was quite troubling to Dr and Mrs Fredrics that he might have been inappropriately involved not only in the allegedly corrupt grievance appeal hearing, but also, in the alleged attempts by the University to cover up the evidence of the conduct of these proceedings.

After a preliminary hearing on 10 May 2007, the Crown Prosecution Service, in an apparently political decision, took over the case from Dr and Mrs Fredrics and on 22 June 2007, dropped the charges on the grounds that there was “insufficient evidence” that a crime took place. The basis of their decision was that the Act does not explicitly refer to Employment Tribunal proceedings under its list of “relevant proceedings”.

Could Parliament have intended for witness intimidation to, in effect, be legal when it involves parties to an Employment Tribunal, a bona fide civil proceeding with the full weight of law behind it? Or was this merely an oversight in the wording of the Act? Could a panel of three duly advised Magistrates have got it all wrong? In any event the implications are positively chilling – parties to Employment Tribunals and their witnesses can now be freely intimidated with an eye towards perverting the course of Justice. Whistleblowers who take their employers to Tribunal must now be especially careful that they do not fall victim to such acts, for which they will have little or no recourse under the law.

From: http://www.freedomtocare.org

Also from Freedom to Care: Three Fundamental Human Claims

• Every human being has an inalienable right to accountable behaviour from organisations (whether public, private or independent) whose activities significantly affect their quality of life and that of future generations.

• Public officials and private sector directors and managers (whether of for-profit or non-profit organisations) have a duty to explain and justify their intentions, actions and omissions to all those whose quality of life is affected thereby.

• All employees have a right to freedom of conscience and speech in the workplace.

The shocking cost of workplace bullying

The world's biggest anti-bullying project reveals that employers' failure to tackle the root causes of bullying in the workplace is costing the UK economy GBP13.75 billion a year.

The project also reveals that Black, Minority and Ethnic (BME) workers are more likely to be targets of workplace bullying and harassment than other workers yet are less likely to have a support network to help them through the experience.

In 'The Costs of Workplace Bullying', the project has estimated that some 33.5 million jobs were lost by UK organisation in 2007 as a result of bullying-related absenteeism. Almost 200,000 employees considered leaving their jobs and the equivalent of 100 million days in productivity were lost as a result of bullying.

Cath Speight, Unite acting head of equalities said: "Employers can no longer be in any doubt about the business case for tackling bullying. It has a devastating impact on individuals, but businesses suffer too. Workers who suffer from bullying, and those who witness it, experience low morale and are more likely to take time off or leave their jobs."

A second report, 'BME Employee Experiences of Workplace Bullying`, is calling upon employers to improve anti-bullying activities in their workplaces.

Cath Speight added: "The shocking truth is that Black and Minority Ethnic workers are more likely to be targets of workplace bullying. Employers need to recognise this and take action to combat this."

The report's main author, Dr Sabir Giga from the University of Bradford, said: "Bullying is impacting on Black Minority Ethnic workers' job satisfaction, promotion opportunities and health. Employers must develop a zero tolerance to bullying so that all workers are treated with dignity and respect."

The Dignity at Work partnership project is also publishing its 'Action Pack', offering solutions to employers and union representatives seeking to tackle workplace bullying.

Baroness Ann Gibson, Chair of the Dignity at Work Project, said: "Workers who experience bullying are more likely to go off sick or leave and colleagues who witness bullying are also less likely to stick around. Employers who choose to ignore bullying do so at huge costs to society."

From: http://www.itnews.it

Download the report

The Abilene Paradox

On a hot afternoon visiting in Coleman, Texas, the family is comfortably playing dominoes on a porch, until the father-in-law suggests that they take a trip to Abilene [53 miles north] for dinner. The wife says, "Sounds like a great idea." The husband, despite having reservations because the drive is long and hot, thinks that his preferences must be out-of-step with the group and says, "Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go." The mother-in-law then says, "Of course I want to go. I haven't been to Abilene in a long time."

The drive is hot, dusty, and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is as bad as the drive. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted.

One of them dishonestly says, "It was a great trip, wasn't it." The mother-in-law says that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic. The husband says, "I wasn't delighted to be doing what we were doing. I only went to satisfy the rest of you." The wife says, "I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that." The father-in-law then says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored.

The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip which none of them wanted. They each would have preferred to sit comfortably, but did not admit to it when they still had time to enjoy the afternoon.

The phenomenon may be a form of groupthink. It is easily explained by social psychology theories of social conformity and social cognition which suggest that human beings are often very averse to acting contrary to the trend of the group. Likewise, it can be observed in psychology that indirect cues and hidden motives often lie behind peoples' statements and acts, frequently because social disincentives discourage individuals from openly voicing their feelings or pursuing their desires.

From: Wikipedia

Why?

Anonymous said:

It is the sort of policies that encourage fraud of this sort at universities (i.e. in effect, misrepresentation of academic standards and/or refusal to make concrete improvements in quality) that lead directly to bullying of staff and students. When staff come forward and tell the truth about what's really going on, they are targeted for elimination rituals.

Wouldn't it just be easier to actually do something to improve the quality of education, rather than wasting resources by silencing and eliminating ethical and accomplished academics, as well as later being forced to waste hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money on defending the inevitable lawsuits that result from bullying the staff and students?

That's not even taking into account the extremely negative impact on the university's reputation and income stream when these things eventually come out in the wash -- and they nearly always do. Tsk, tsk, penny-wise and pound-foolish.

A question for Sir Peter Scott: Wouldn't it be wiser to take advantage of the energy and ingenuity of staff members to do GOOD for the University rather than wasting their talents by eliminating them?

Just imagine how much good these people could have done for the University if they weren't bullied out of their jobs when they voiced GENUINE concerns for the well being of the University?

Is there, indeed, no room for constructive criticism at Kingston University?

Why aren't those staff members who call for maintaining and/or improving standards listened to and rewarded?

The Universities Secretary John Denham had told the House of Commons that he condemned the attempt at Kingston University to distort the survey

A university department is to be excluded from this year's official league tables of student satisfaction. The removal of Kingston's psychology department data follows a recording which caught staff instructing students to falsify their approval ratings.

Students were told by staff if they gave negative responses "nobody is going to want to employ you". The government-funded National Student Survey is intended to help applicants decide where to apply to university.

Kingston University says it accepts the decision and will work "to avoid any repeat of this incident". The decision to remove Kingston's psychology department from the 2008 National Student Survey, set to be published in September, has been taken by the Higher Education Funding Council which runs the survey.

'It might sound biased...'

"It's very important that people believe in the findings," said a Hefce spokesman.

The Universities Secretary John Denham had told the House of Commons that he "utterly condemned" the attempt at Kingston University to distort the survey.

There have been claims in e-mails sent to the BBC News website that the survey, part of the quality assurance system, was being used by some universities as a way of improving their public image - including an internal university e-mail describing the survey as part of "reputation management".

Along with removing Kingston's psychology department, the funding council is expected to issue tougher guidelines to protect the credibility of the survey.

Staff at Kingston University were caught in an audio recording encouraging students to dishonestly answer the survey - telling students that inflating the ranking of the university would be to their own advantage. "If Kingston comes down the bottom, the bottom line is that nobody is going to want to employ you," staff warned students.

"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," students were told.

The briefing from staff presented this official survey as an opportunity to promote a positive image for the university. "In effect you're competing against lots of students at other institutions who also want their university to look good," students were 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."

'Reputation management'

The recording showed 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 in the recording instructed students not to use the survey for negative comments if they were unhappy about the modules they had been taught. "All that garbage you're spewing out about us" should not be included in the National Student Survey, students were warned.

The spokesman for Hefce says that the survey is intended to help to inform the decision making of university applicants and to give universities feedback about their courses.

It is also part of the quality assurance to make sure that public money is being well spent in higher education. The survey is carried out in universities in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and in some participating universities in Scotland.

A statement from Kingston University said that it accepted the decision and "has been aware that this was the most likely outcome since this isolated incident first came to light".

"Kingston University has taken this situation very seriously and co-operated fully with Hefce as it has looked into the matter. The university plans to introduce an agreed script in the run-up to the next National Student Survey which will be widely circulated to students and staff to avoid any repeat of this incident."

From: http://news.bbc.co.uk

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.