Pushed out after whistleblowing

A university director who claims she lost her job after whistleblowing has said the process that led to redundancies “was too fast, too secret, was over the summer and it wasn’t fair.”

Prof Linda Archibald made the statement during the final day of the hearing yesterday into whether she was the subject of sexual discrimination after being given compulsory redundancy in 2006.

The 50-year-old academic, who worked for Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) for 17 years, said she was pushed out after whistleblowing on her boss’s mismanagement of her faculty’s accounts.

The director of the language school said she had been the victim of bullying by individuals and the institution and accused the university of “escalating discriminatory behaviour from the dean and above.”

Paul Gilroy, for LJMU, strenuously denied any accusations of bullying or discrimination. He said Prof Archibald was not the victim of sexual discrimination, a charge that “did not add up.”

Prof Archibald lost her job following a restructure which saw five departments merged into two.

Mr Gilroy said the restructuring was needed because of a “national decline” in the studying of languages, which had been reflected in the university’s admissions. He said Prof Archibald had been informed of the proposed changes from the very beginning of discussions in November, 2005, and was “well aware” her job title was under threat.

He claimed she did not get the job she applied for because she failed to demonstrate vision or leadership. He also said during the process of reapplying for jobs, some men missed out on positions and others were taken by women.

But Prof Archibald said jobs were advertised on a “drip-feed” basis and there were only two jobs on offer, one as director of the business school and one director of operations. She said she didn’t fit the specification for operations director, but should have been considered for re-deployment as director of the business school.

Compared with the other four directors, she was the longest- serving and had the greatest academic qualifications needed for the post, a 2.1 doctorate.

Closing the hearing, Mr Gilroy said Prof Archi bald had offered no explanation of what should have happened during the restructuring process, aside from saying she would take a sabbatical.

The tribunal panel have retired to make their decision, which is expected next week.

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

Also:

...Ms Archibald claimed there were “huge gaps in the administration of research” in the faculty, with annual reports “an area of huge neglect”.

She said an “endemic” problem of record-keeping led to students being missed off spreadsheets, while phantom students and those with “dubious immigration status” were wrongly registered.

Ms Archibald claimed she aired her concerns with JMU vice-chancellor Michael Brown when repeated attempts to speak to Professor Kirkbride over the faculty’s financial state failed.

She said: “I told the vice chancellor financial and academic irregularities and a cavalier macho culture among some senior staff in the business and law areas were like a juggernaut heading for a wall.”

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

United Kingdom: The Future Of Disciplinary And Grievance Procedures: The New ACAS Code

The new strengthened ACAS Code, while being preferable to the ongoing statutory rules, still leaves employers bound by strict procedures.

The new Code is a key element in the Government's plans to streamline and simplify the dispute resolution system for the benefit of employees and employers... it will complement the removal of statutory measures by establishing flexible, principles-based guidance to help resolve disputes early.'

This statement, by Minister for Employment Relations Pat McFadden, encapsulates the aim behind the revised Acas Code of Practice for disciplinary and grievance procedures. Following the Michael Gibbons report in 2007, which comprehensively reviewed how to simplify and improve all aspects of employment dispute resolution, the Government decided to scrap the compulsory dispute resolution procedures introduced in 2004. During the consultation, many contributors suggested a strengthened Acas Code would be a better solution, and it is this that will come into effect in April 2009.

What will the new Code involve?

The draft Code aims to encourage informal steps to resolve issues before any action is taken. Although the statutory procedures are abolished, we are not quite taken back to the position before they were introduced in 2004; one important difference between the new draft Code and the pre-2004 position is that an unreasonable failure to comply with the provision of the Code will entitle tribunals to adjust any awards made in relevant cases by up to 25 per cent.

The main provisions of the draft Code are as follows:

• Issues should be dealt with promptly.

• Employers should act consistently.

• Appropriate investigations should be made.

• Grievance or disciplinary actions should be carried out by managers not involved in the matter giving rise to the dispute.

• Performance issues should involve immediate managers.

• Employees should be informed and be able to put forward their case before any decisions are made.

• Employees have the right to be accompanied.

• Employees should be allowed to appeal.

• It is good practice for employers to keep written records.

Discipline

This part of the Code sets out the key ways for handling disciplinary problems in the workplace, which are to:

• establish the facts of each case;

• inform the employee of the problem;

• hold a meeting with the employee to discuss the problems;

• allow the employee to be accompanied to a meeting;

• decide on appropriate action; and

• provide employees with an opportunity to appeal.

The draft Code also briefly refers to "special cases" involving trade union lay officials and employees charged with criminal offences.

Grievance

This part of the Code lists the keys to handling grievances in the workplace as follows:

• Let the employer know the nature of the grievance.

• Hold a meeting with the employee to discuss the grievance.

• Allow the employee to be accompanied at the meeting.

• Decide on appropriate action.

• Allow the employee to take the grievance further if not resolved.

The draft Code states that it is good practice to consider dealing separately with issues of bullying, harassment, or whistleblowing, in other words to have separate procedures and, potentially, specially trained HR managers designated to those investigations.

Commentary

Acas' own aims regarding the purpose of the Code bear a strong resemblance to those of the repealed statutory procedures: "Employers and employees should do all that they can to resolve disciplinary and grievance issues in the workplace...where this is not possible employers and employees should consider using a third party to help resolve the problem. Recourse to an employment tribunal should only be a last resort."

One of the main shortcomings with the statutory procedures was that they failed to reduce the number of claims brought before the Employment Tribunal. The question is whether the similarities between the Code and the statutory procedures will lead to a similar result.

In the context of unfair dismissal, employers will welcome the abolition of the statutory procedures as they will no longer be made automatically liable for unfair dismissal due to a technical failure to follow procedures. This is a positive move, eliminating a number of claims that were brought on technical issues without real merits.

However, failure to follow the Code may be punitive. By giving tribunals the discretion to increase awards by up to 25 per cent, which could be substantial in uncapped discrimination claims, if an employer unreasonably fails to comply, it is debatable whether the Code departs far enough from the harsh penalties imposed under the old system. There is concern that this provision will resurrect the painful problems of the statutory procedures, where every part of the process has to be followed meticulously to avoid an increase in an award. In addition to the Code, there will also be further guidelines, currently going through the consultation stage, which, although not regarded as compulsory, may in due course gain some weight in deciding tribunal cases.

The Code is still procedurally based. Although it has helped expand the scope for alternative solutions to tribunal claims with the encouragement of mediators to help settle claims, the grievance procedures still have an adversarial win or lose basis rather than exploring the reasons behind the grievance and what a mutually-beneficial solution may be.

One hopes that, like the repealed rules, it does not become another case of good intentions leading to over-regulation. Until April however, it is unclear how far its intentions will be received.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

From: http://www.mondaq.com

University Administrators

In 1997, Hector Hammerly set down a long list of characterizations of university administrators. Below are ten of them.

These administrators, Hammerly said:

1. Put their pants on one leg at a time, like everybody else, but think it would be demeaning to acknowledge it;
   
   
2. Know as much about planning, budgeting, human relations, and conflict resolution as a pit bull;
   
   
3. Have "zero tolerance" for others and total tolerance for themselves;
   
   
4. Listen to professors attentively and graciously, like a cat listens to a canary;
   
   
5. Believe there's no need for any democratic nonsense between rubber-stamp ballots;
   
   
6. See "leadership" as looking down upon, sitting on top of, and stepping all over;
   
   
7. Always support each other against those they fancy their "enemy" — faculty, staff, and students, no less;
   
   
8. Have policies for every conceivable situation and regulations for every conceivable activity, but ignore them all when convenient;
   
   
9. Are power-addicted, fairness-innocent, apology-challenged, and freedom-averse;
   
   
10. Cow faculty members into not helping each other — which would be the professors' only hope for shaking off the yoke.
    

From: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/hhammerly.htm

And, we had an anonymous contribution for number 11:

11. Establish and maintain a network of informants amongst the staff to not only report on dissenters but also apprentice as future administrators.

Do we have any contributions for number 12?

Public Lecture

Mark your calendar — Public Lecture by an Eminent Theologian

The Second Hammerly Memorial Lecture on Academic Mobbing

"How to Destroy a Don"

Hugo A. Meynell, F.R.S.C., Calgary, Alberta

Wednesday, 5 Nov. 2008, 3:30 PM, ML 246, University of Waterloo

From: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/mobbing.htm

Tell the truth about life at Kingston University

Have you worked for Kingston University?
Have you been mistreated by Kingston University?
Were you bullied and/or unfairly dismissed by Kingston University?

Or were you a staff member who participated in bullying or corruption at Kingston University?
If so, it's NOT too late to seek redemption by coming forward NOW and telling the truth about WHY you may have done what you did and WHO may have told you that you HAD to do this to save your own job.

We want to know YOUR story.
Tell us about what happened to you.
We promise to keep it STRICTLY confidential.
Send e-mail to: blowthewhistle@sirpeterscott.com

From: http://www.sirpeterscott.com/

Mobbing: animalistic behaviour

Mobbing, based on animalistic behaviour, is a malicious attempt by peers and leaders to gang up on a particular individual because they see her as a threat to their own survival. The target displays exceptional talent combined with outstanding integrity. This potent combination of traits is rare.

One of the differences between mobbing and bullying is that mobbing is condoned and even instigated by the managers. Mobbing is more serious than bullying and is referred to as psychological terrorism because the victim never knows when the next wave will come. Managers go along with it because they fear that bucking the abuse will undermine their authority. Employees with a mature personality will not participate. In the last phase of mobbing, the group will start to call the target "mentally ill" or "difficult."

This form of behaviour is common in organizations with high stress, educational institutions, and government departments. The code of ethics needs to include a statement against mobbing and the management style needs to change. The key leader should advertise that he will listen to any complaints of mobbing without retribution toward the victim.

Sharon Ryan is an adjunct professor of management sciences at Concordia University College of Alberta. Sharonryan2@gmail.com

From: http://working.canada.com

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?