Why Does [ACADEMIC] Mobbing Take Place?

Why do mobbing processes develop in the first place? Widely spread prejudices maintain that the problem arises once an employee with character difficulties enters the work force. Research so far has never been able in any way to validate this hypothesis, either with respect to mobbed employees at the workplace, or mobbed children in school. Thus, personality theories are not very valid for analyzing the reasons behind mobbing. What then does research show as its probable causes?

The Work Organization as a Factor: Analyses of approximately 800 case studies show an almost stereotypical pattern (Becker 1995; Kihle 1990; Leymann 1992b; Niedl 1995). In all these cases, extremely poorly organized production and/or working methods and an almost helpless or uninterested management were found. This is not surprising keeping in mind the poor organizational conditions revealed at most of the workplaces at which I found (1992b, 1995c) mobbed employees from hospitals, schools and religious organizations were overrepresented in these studies. Lets take the work organization at a certain hospital as an example (see also Leymann´s and Gustafsson´s suicide study). Quite a few nurses, whom we interviewed, did not really know who their boss was. A hospital has at least two parallel hierarchies: one, represented by doctors responsible for diagnosing and determining treatments, and one represented by a hierarchy of nurses responsible for carrying out the treatment. Both hierarchies have management that gives orders and bosses the nurses, both kinds of bosses have the authority to tell a nurse what to do or what not to do.

The work load may increase either because of a shortage in the work force or due to poor work organization on a daily basis. Often, the unofficial institution of spontaneous leadership (often stigmatized as dangerous in the literature on management and organization) is required to get things accomplished at all. This commonly results in a situation where a nurse occasionally can assume command of a group of nurses without having the authority to do so, in order to accomplish the work. Clear-cut rules for this unofficial procedure, or knowledge of whether fellow nurses will accept this or not, do not exist. All of these situations are in fact high-risk situations and can very easily result in conflicts. When this happens, whether the conflict will be prolonged or can be easily settled, depends very often on the existing type of group dynamics and not on (as it should be) whether management has the training and motivation to solve conflicts or not. Especially in a working world where almost only women are employed, conflicts tend to become harsher, as women are more dependent on socially, supportive group dynamics (Björkqvist, Österman & Hjelt-Bäck, 1994).

Poor Conflict Management as a Second Source: The situation gets far more dangerous if the manager of one of these hierarchies wants to be part of the social setting. If the supervisor, instead of sorting out the problem, is actively taking part in the harassment, he or she also has to choose sides. As I have seen in very many cases, this stirs up the situation and makes it worse (Leymann, 1992b). In addition to this management reaction, it has been found to a high degree that, when a manager simply neglects the "quarrel", the conflict is thus given time to deepen and escalate. Poor managerial performance thus entails either (a) getting involved in the group dynamics on an equal basis and thereby heating it up further (which I have seen more often with female managers), or (b) denying that a conflict exists (which I have seen more often with male managers). Both types of behaviors are quite dangerous and, together with poor work organization, are the main causes for the development of a mobbing process at the workplace (Adams, 1992; or Kihle, 1990).

Again, it must be underlined, that research concerning causes of mobbing behavior, is still in its beginning; in particular the difference in behavior between male and female managers is still poorly understood. Research in this area has been carried out in Finland, demonstrating that women choose mobbing activities that affect the victim more indirectly (gossip, slander, encouraging other individuals to carry out mobbing activities etc.). Björkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukianinen (1992) state that female aggressiveness has been widely overlooked in earlier research because variables in the data collecting were mainly oriented towards male standards. Björkqvist et al. argue that this might be the reason behind the false impression that women score lower on questionnaires measuring aggressiveness. Even here, future research will eventually focus in more detail on the causes.

What about the personality of the subjected person? As mentioned earlier, research so far has not revealed the importance particular of personality traits either with respect to adults in workplaces or children at school. It must not be forgotten that the workplace should not be confused with other situations in life. A workplace is always regulated by behavioral rules. One of these rules calls for effective co-operation, controlled by the supervisor. Conflicts can always arise, but, according to these behavioral rules, they must be settled in order to promote efficient productivity. One of the supervisor´s obligations is to manage this kind of situation. By neglecting this obligation (and supervisors as well as top management often do so as a consequence of shortcomings in conflict management), a supervisor then - instead - promotes the escalation of the conflict into a mobbing process.

In its early stages, mobbing is most often a sign that a conflict concerning the organization of work tasks has taken on a private touch. When a conflict is "privatized", or if the motive behind its further development begins to develop into a deeper dislike between two individuals, then the conflict concerning work tasks has created a situation that an employer has the obligation to stop. Once a conflict has reached this stage in its escalation, it is meaningless to blame someone's "personality" for it. If a conflict has developed into a mobbing process, the responsibility lies primarily with management, either because conflict management has not been brought to bear on the situation, or because there is a lack of organizational policies with respect to handling conflict situations (Leymann, 1993b).

Another argument against regarding an individual´s personality as a cause of mobbing processes is that when a post-traumatic stress syndrome develops, the individual can undergo major personality changes that are indicative of a major mental disorder brought on by the mobbing process. As the symptoms of this changed personality are quite typical and distinct, it is understandable that even psychiatrists who lack knowledge about PTSD as a typical victim disorder, misinterpret these symptoms as being something that the individual brought into the company in the first place (Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996).

From: http://www.leymann.se/English/frame.html

Bullying as a pervasive problem in science research

Bullying, as defined by Wikipedia, "is the act of intentionally causing harm to others, through verbal harassment, physical assault, or other more subtle methods of coercion such as manipulation [...] Bullying is usually done to coerce others by fear or threat" (http://en.wikipedia.org/, accessed 1 August 2008). Of course, as adults we tend to think of bullying as a school-age problem and seldom talk about it or how it affects our lives. Yet, although I might be in the minority, I think that bullying is a pervasive problem in academic research and that scientists seem to accept it without further comment or disapproval as though it were a normal part of life.

PhD students, as the most junior and vulnerable members of a research group, who lack the support of success and experience to carry them through difficult periods, are most prone to become the victims of bullies. Some older colleagues might simply be scathing or insulting when commenting on an imperfect experiment; others just remain silent to cow the newcomer into submission. Some are downright nasty, but that is unusual; peer bullying is more subtle. But this subtlety is what makes bullying in this manner so insidious: it can be dismissed by senior scientists as 'professional criticism' or 'character building'; it is not.

Bullying also extends to defending dishonesty when claiming credit for the results that a junior group member has generated—after the supposed mentor had ignored the experiments while they were not working. In this case, PhD students are elbowed out of the way—figuratively speaking—and labelled as trouble makers if they complain that they are not receiving due credit. The bully gets a higher position on a publication than was warranted and the pre-docs have to labour even harder to move their careers forward. Sometimes, a senior laboratory member might even steal a project from a junior member if it seems sufficiently advanced and promising for publication.

Of course, the line between a competitive atmosphere and one where actual bullying is tolerated is a fine one. It is often the case that the bully's motives—the need to advance their own career—fall on the sympathetic ears of the laboratory head. There is a sense that 'everyone goes through this' and browbeating junior members is part of their training. Research science is certainly a competitive 'sport', which might explain why many successful scientists have 'strong' characters. But too much competition easily leads to a situation in which everyone suffers and the pressure stifles, rather than encourages, excellence.

This pressure is most prominent after an invitation to give an important plenary lecture: it creates an opportunity to excel and make one's mark on the community, but comes with large amounts of stress. In such a circumstance, the pressure on those doing the experiments increases exponentially. Some laboratory heads become outright aggressive with their team, which gives rise to a cascade of bullying as unreasonable demands are made or implied: drop other activities, work non-stop, 'borrow' reagents from others—all is fair in love, war and science, it seems. Similarly, fears that a competitor is going to publish something that will scoop ongoing work can also turn the laboratory into a hostile environment where anger, implications of inadequacy and internal competition run rampant. It also presents an opportunity to deceitfully commandeer or swap projects on the grounds of greater efficiency if a senior team member claims that he or she can complete the work faster.

Group leaders who create or encourage such an exploitative environment also tend to bully editors or reviewers when their grant application or paper is rejected. I have many years of experience both with the selection processes for grants and fellowships, and with the editorial procedures at scientific journals and, from what I have seen and read, the reaction of some scientists when their grant application or submission is rejected can be downright disgraceful. If they know that they are dealing with more junior people, they will emphasize that they are the expert and that the decision should not rest with 'some ignorant editor' who is not a 'real scientist' anyway. They will ridicule the referees who critically analysed their work; they will persist, bully and coerce until they get beyond the initial rejection.

Conversely, when such bullies make their case to a more senior colleague, they change their tactic from being offensive to chummy collegiality. No matter the tactics, this bullying is unfair and to the detriment of scientists who still have to establish their reputation, and to the vast majority of colleagues who gracefully accept the comments of an editor or reviewer.

I might be exaggerating the extent and seriousness of bullying in academic science, but its existence is undeniable. Science certainly needs a degree of competition and is genuinely driven by the incentive to be the first to discover; we are a competitive species after all. Nonetheless, we should consider the damage we inflict on one another and on research itself if we tolerate bullying. Academic science needs all types of characters; not only the dominant and aggressive ones, but also the pensive and quiet workers. More importantly, scientific research flourishes best in an environment characterized by mutual respect, tolerance and support, and where bullying has no place.

From: http://www.nature.com

Understanding the Reasons for Workplace Bullying

There are many different issues that motivate bullies to abuse their victims. Although tactics may vary from person to person, bullies share common psychological characteristics that cause them to behave badly toward their colleagues.

Understanding what incites a bully’s behavior may help you deal with it in your workplace more effectively. This will also help you identify abusive situations, and prepare you to help bullies resolve their issues without reverting to abuse.
What You Need to Know

What motivates a bully?

Most incidents of bullying are motivated by the bully’s own lack of self-esteem rather than the specific actions, appearance, or personality of the victim. Many bullies feel that they cannot cope with certain aspects of their own job. They feel threatened by a highly competent colleague or a colleague who receives praise from a manager.

Ultimately, bullies operate to hide their own incompetence. They view their victims as direct threats and bully them in an attempt to prevent their own inadequacies being revealed to other colleagues and managers.
How do bullies choose their targets?

Bullying is motivated by the insecurities and inadequacies of the bully, so any colleague who, unwittingly, threatens to highlight or expose those failings is a potential target.

In addition, certain personality traits are common to the targets of bullies. Such characteristics may include some of the following:

* being popular with colleagues, perhaps because of a vivacious personality and a good sense of humor
* being recognized (by praise or promotion) for professional competence
* being well-known and rewarded for trustworthiness and integrity (perhaps by having increased responsibility)
* being helpful, sensitive and known as someone that colleagues can talk to about professional or personal issues
* finding it difficult to say no and frequently offering to help others with projects or deadlines
* Being unwilling to gossip or engage in malicious discussion about the incompetence of others
* Being quick to apologize when accused of something, even if not guilty

Bullies are also opportunistic and may choose a particular victim in order advance their own career. Many bullies select vulnerable victims that they can intimidate more easily than more confident colleagues—perhaps a new hire, a younger or older colleague, or someone that is shy or reserved. Targeting such people allows bullies to manipulate events and actions in their favor, transferring blame for incompetence from themselves to vulnerable victims.

From: http://www.bnet.com/

Have they learnt something? Are they learning anything?

Visit 40.383 was from Universities UK. Have they learnt something? Are they learning anything?

Not a union worth being a member of...

• Macdonald Daly 11 October, 2008

  I was UCU President at Nottingham for seven years then Vice-President for 2. UCU HQ and regional officers, with the exception of wage negotiators, were in nearly every case poor at providing support. Legal support? Forget it. UCU is not, in my view, a union worth being a member of.

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

7th November 2008 - Ban Bullying At Work Day

Welcome to the independent home of the 5th National Ban Bullying at work day campaign.

Workplace bullying is a silent disease affecting millions of people throughout the UK. Nobody is immune, so turning a blind eye or a deaf ear is no longer an option. 18.9 million Working days are lost to industry every year. Workplace bullying should be on every employers agenda - Is it on yours?

Recognition and awareness of bullying at work is the focus for this year’s campaign. It is centered on eliminating the fear employees feel about speaking out, by providing them with support to overcome their fear with courage.

We need your organisation to share our commitment by getting involved and raising awareness of this important issue within your own workplace, so that everyone can identify and take responsibility for resolving bullying at work. Come to your senses, what could be simpler?

The Ban Bullying at work campaign is spearheaded by the Andrea Adams trust – the first charity in the UK dedicated to raising awareness of workplace bullying.

Last year’s Ban Bullying day was very successful, with over 300 organisations involved and an estimated 3 million of the UK’s workforce taking part in events on the day. The website was accessed by an estimated 3 million people up to and including November 7th. All campaign promotional items were completely sold out and several thousand co-branded posters were sold across Europe.

A very successful PR campaign saw us on BBC News, GMTV, Sky News, the ‘Today’ programme, 23 regional BBC radio shows and a wide range of newspapers and magazine articles which all helped get the campaign the attention it deserved.

As the UK’s leading authority on workplace bullying, the Andrea Adams Trust is committed not just to helping individuals and organisations deal with the problem, but to extending our understanding of the nature and scale of workplace bullying through extensive partnership working. For more details of the Trust’s work click here.

Too bad

Further to UCU: 'Mild-mannered militants' will get our support and protection':

• Howard Fredrics 9 October, 2008

  It's too bad that Sally Hunt doesn't stick by her words by helping bullied university staff to assert their legal rights. By failing to provide even basic legal support to virtually all applicants and by then withdrawing support to those few applicants who are given initial help when they elect to go all the way to trial, rather than accept a pitiful compromise agreement, Sally Hunt is perpetuating the cozy relationship between management and UCU at the expense of lecturers.

• Peter Kropotkin 9 October, 2008

  It is good to read that Sally is making some noise - now what about some action? All UCU needs to do is select some representative cases of union members that are relatively clear-cut, that have a decent chance of winning in an Employment Tribunal, and take them all the way. This will really show that UCU means business. The 2,000 active cases of members claiming unfair treatment, is more than likely the tip of the iceberg.

• Aubrey Blumsohn 9 October, 2008

  Too bad indeed.

  There is a world of difference between that which the Sally believes she sees and what the UCU/AUT actually does.

  Sadly, when asked to explain why the UCU failed to uphold the most basic principles of academic freedom in several cases (including those of Rhetta Moran and myself), Sally felt it appropriate to reply in a completely irrelevant manner and then to terminate the conversation.
  

• Andy 10 October, 2008
  
  Is Ms. Hunt living on a different planet? I’ve been paying my subs as a research student member of the Union for years, but when I desperately needed them to help me with a serious issue of disability discrimination (an issue that would have been eagerly championed in the good old days, when ‘outdated’ union membership actually meant something) my request was refused on the basis that I am (or was) a student, and I was dumped into a desperate legal black hole. Forget about the paddle – I was without a canoe. Despite my evidently sub union status as a student, I sent them a number of payslips showing the ad hoc casual teaching work that I was encouraged to do by the University - casual work is included in employment legislation and should have triggered at least a twitch of interest from this ineffectual Union. Is it any wonder that belligerent managers such as the ‘loose-lipped registrar’ (I know him only too well) treat the Union with derision. It’s because they act derisory.

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

UCU: 'Mild-mannered militants' will get our support and protection

With 2,000 active cases of members claiming unfair treatment at any one time UCU membership remains vital, says Sally Hunt.

Earlier this year, Times Higher Education "outed" a university registrar laughing about redundancies, describing staff as "deadwood" and the University and College Union (UCU) as "outdated" and "left wing" ("Loose lips sink staff relationships", 1 May).

What startled me at the time was how little surprise there was across the sector that the individuals concerned should hold such views.

It is perhaps easier to see this episode as symbolic of a sector increasingly dominated by macho management, such as that at Nottingham Trent University, where UCU members have voted in favour of strike action after the union faced derecognition unless it agreed to a much weakened agreement.

The concept of derecognition in higher education seems utterly alien until you link it to the broader anti-union context epitomised by our loose-lipped registrar.

Still not convinced? Try the thoughts of Nick Rogers, human resources director at Kingston University, who said in February: "I believe in trade unions - responsible trade unions. But being responsible means not pandering to a vocal, militant minority who cannot see either the future of modern employee relations, or the benefits it can bring to hard-working colleagues."

The extremism of the language is as shocking as the argument is weak. What Rogers really meant was that he believes in unions, so long as they are compliant.

These are not isolated instances. A work-life balance survey undertaken in 2007 by Coventry University reported that leadership styles in higher education were perceived to be "reactive, secretive, inconsistent, demotivating, controlling and indecisive". The survey also reported that university staff were more likely than others to experience bullying. In a recent UCU study, 6.7 per cent of respondents said that they were "always or often" bullied.

The UCU estimates that our branches are dealing with about 2,000 individual cases of members claiming unfair treatment at any one time. How sad that, instead of addressing the problem, the hawks who seem to be running higher education choose to shoot the messenger - the UCU.

The union acts as a powerful civilising influence on a sector that sometimes forgets how to treat staff properly. Membership is at its highest since the merger with our colleagues from further education and growing fastest among employees on fixed-term contracts.

The case of Andrew Ball, a researcher who won a landmark case against the University of Aberdeen, forcing it to offer him a permanent post after it had employed him continuously on short-term contracts for nine years, exposed the practices that have entrenched job insecurity within higher education.

Ball says he would "encourage university contract researchers at whatever stage in their careers to join UCU ... if they choose to remain out of the union they lose a powerful tool for representation to employers and government".

In its judgment against Aberdeen, the Employment Tribunal noted that the standard excuse of highly insecure funding as the cause of casualisation simply would not wash. Most comparable businesses would love to have the security of funding universities receive, said the tribunal, but they manage without the endemic use of short-term contracts. On 3 December, Times Higher Education readers are invited to join our first day of action to stamp out casualisation.

The 2006 pay settlement demonstrates exactly why the UCU and its members are so important to the sector. We had heard encouraging rhetoric about the need to pay staff properly, but when it came down to it the deal was substantially better than what the employers had been prepared to offer only because UCU members were prepared to challenge them.

But having been forced to pay more than they wanted, employers are looking to get even. On 18 September, Times Higher Education quoted an unnamed source as saying next year's increase will be between "zero and a very small figure".

Any attempts to claw back the value of our current pay deal will be seen by staff as yet another kick in the teeth, particularly as vice-chancellor pay is immune from this proposed downward pressure on staff salaries.

Most UCU members would chuckle to see themselves described as militants. They are dedicated professionals committed to their students and their colleagues.

Yet in this new world where the UCU is threatened with derecognition, where casual staff must go to court to establish their rights, where it takes industrial action to secure decent pay offers, and where one in 15 report regular bullying, even the most mild-mannered of people can become angry.

Vice-chancellors and their well-remunerated hired hands who wish the "dinosaurs" would leave the stage will be disappointed. The UCU and its mild-mannered militants are here to stay.

Postscript :

Sally Hunt is general secretary of the University and College Union.

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk - When you visit the Times Higher Education, don't forget to add your comment at the bottom of their page.

UNESCO: Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel

B. Self-governance and collegiality

31. Higher-education teaching personnel should have the right and opportunity, without discrimination of any kind, according to their abilities, to take part in the governing bodies and to criticize the functioning of higher education institutions, including their own, while respecting the right of other sections of the academic community to participate, and they should also have the right to elect a majority of representatives to academic bodies within the higher education institution.

32. The principles of collegiality include academic freedom, shared responsibility, the policy of participation of all concerned in internal decision making structures and practices, and the development of consultative mechanisms. Collegial decision-making should encompass decisions regarding the administration and determination of policies of higher education, curricula, research, extension work, the allocation of resources and other related activities, in order to improve academic excellence and quality for the benefit of society at large.

D. Discipline and dismissal

48. No member of the academic community should be subject to discipline, including dismissal, except for just and sufficient cause demonstrable before an independent third-party hearing of peers, and/or before an impartial body such as arbitrators or the courts.

49. All members of higher-education teaching personnel should enjoy equitable safeguards at each stage of any disciplinary procedure, including dismissal, in accordance with the international standards set out in the appendix.

50. Dismissal as a disciplinary measure should only be for just and sufficient cause related to professional conduct, for example: persistent neglect of duties, gross incompetence, fabrication or falsification of research results, serious financial irregularities, sexual or other misconduct with students, colleagues, or other members of the academic community or serious threats thereof, or corruption of the educational process such as by falsifying grades, diplomas or degrees in return for money, sexual or other favours or by demanding sexual, financial or other material favours from subordinate employees or colleagues in return for continuing employment.

51. Individuals should have the right to appeal against the decision to dismiss them before independent, external bodies such as arbitrators or the courts, with final and binding powers.

From: http://portal.unesco.org

Fired prof 'in heaven' to be back at UTSA

Alberto Arroyo came to the University of Texas at San Antonio 26 years ago with $25, an engineering degree and his reputation. He unpacked boxes, set up labs, and helped build a civil engineering department that's nationally recognized for turning out Hispanic graduates.

This summer, when the university fired him for alleged ethics violations, everything he had built seemed to be crumbling. His reputation teetered on the edge of ruin and the stress made him physically ill.

Then last week, on the eve of a faculty tribunal hearing in which Arroyo planned to fight for his job, the university dropped its case and gave Arroyo his job back. He starts work this week.

Arroyo, who repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, said Friday that he feels vindicated.

“I am in heaven. I am alive again,” said a buoyant Arroyo, surrounded by a group of about 50 students, former students and community members gathered at Champps sports bar to celebrate Arroyo's return to UTSA. “Finally, somebody put the file together and read it and said, ‘We are going to hang an innocent man.'”

University officials, who at one point explored criminal charges against Arroyo, offered little explanation for his sudden reinstatement, saying only that it was best for the students and the university.

Arroyo's saga began in January, when officials put him and a fellow engineering professor, Chia-Shun “Rocky” Shih, on administrative leave for buying a parcel of land near Helotes that Shih's students were studying for a yearlong class project.

Shih did not realize until after closing on the land that it was the same parcel his students were studying. He told the students to find a new project, but did not tell them why. Arroyo has said the purchase was coincidental, and he is not to blame for how Shih handled the matter.

UTSA officials are pressing their case against Shih, who appealed his firing to a faculty tribunal. The tribunal heard Shih's case last week and will send its conclusions to University of Texas System regents for a final decision.

In Arroyo's case, he believes a massive outpouring of support from students, alumni and professional engineers helped persuade university officials to bring him back.

“I have never felt so much love in my life,” said Arroyo of the e-mails and letters. “When I read them, I cried.”

Students describe Arroyo as one of the toughest professors in the department, but also one of the kindest. If a student needed books and could not afford them, Arroyo would make an anonymous donation, said Margarita Hernandez, a former student who now works for the City of San Antonio as a storm water reviewer.

“For the university to be doing this to him, I was completely shocked,” Hernandez said. “He was the backbone of the civil engineering program.”

Another former student, Laura Campa, said Arroyo gave her a job grading papers when she was broke and trying to pay her way through college. The university's treatment of Arroyo so upset Campa that when the alumni association called asking for money, she turned it down.

“I said no, I wasn't willing to support the university right now because of what they had done to Dr. Arroyo,” Campa said.

When Megan Forthman, a 22-year-old senior, heard about Arroyo's predicament, she gathered 79 signatures from fellow civil engineering students on a petition to reinstate Arroyo. She sent it to a host of administrators, including UTSA President Ricardo Romo, but received no response.

“It was ridiculous,” Forthman said. “I am really upset still with the university and most definitely with Dr. Romo.”

Among structural engineers in the community, Arroyo's absence caused concern about the quality of UTSA graduates, said John Marin, a local structural engineer.

“The students were of a high caliber, mostly because it's pretty tough to get through the requirements Arroyo's got. You really need to know what you are doing,” Marin said.

Though Arroyo's supporters may find it hard to forgive UTSA, Arroyo harbors no ill will.

“When I leave, I will have my degree, my reputation back, my $25 and the love of my students. That's all that I wanted,” Arroyo said.

From: http://www.mysanantonio.com