Critiques of the anti-bullying movement and responses to them

...Of the 50 or so academic mobbing targets described on my website – Lawrence Summers, Ward Churchill, Therese Warden, James D. Watson, Norman Finkelstein, Sami Al-Arian, Justine Sergent, many more – few have been identified in academic or public media as targets of bullying. Many have been called bullies themselves.

The term “difficult person” is a common synonym for bully, the workmate who needs to be corrected or gotten rid of, the nail sticking up that needs to be hammered down. In the first US book on mobbing, Noa Davenport and her colleagues argue that labeling a workmate a “difficult person” is a technique of mobbing.

Robert Sutton’s popular 2007 book, The No Asshole Rule, reports and reflects the work of many presenters at this conference. Yet in her Hammerly Memorial Lecture on Academic Mobbing this spring, Joan Friedenberg criticized Sutton sharply for oversimplifying the complexities of workplace conflict. Sutton is bright and circumspect. He says he worries “slightly” that “if we are too zealous about becoming civility Nazis …it will stifle creativity and individuality.” Friedenberg’s worry – and mine – is not slight but serious, that Sutton’s book invites workplace mobbing.

A popular motto for colleges in the past, pinpointing their academic purpose, was “Doce, disce, aut discede” – in English, “Teach, Learn, or Leave.” The motto deserves renewed currency in light of Alan Kors and Harvey Silverglate’s 1998 book, The Shadow University, which is about academic hangers-on who neither teach nor learn but instead meddle in scholars’ lives. Brock University philosopher Murray Miles has lately reported that his institution has a policy modeled on those at Bath, Kent, and Bradford in the UK, against “academic bullying.” The human rights officer who helps administers Brock’s policy offers a workshop entitled “Unlearn,” the first line of the description of which is, “Be nice, or leave.” I share Miles’s horror at the inversion of values this counsel implies...

By Kenneth Westhues
Professor of Sociology
University of Waterloo
http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/mobbing.htm
Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Workplace Bullying, Montreal, 4-6 June 2008

We are popular with Kingston Uni...

Have you seen this statistic?

Anonymous said:

Have you seen this statistic? Kingston came up as the second WORST university in the UK for bullying according to a UCU survey with 15.9% of respondents indicating that they were "Always" or "Often" bullied at work.

A lifesaver...

This blog has been a lifesaver for those of us who have experienced behaviour that feels like workplace bullying.

It is a place where our experiences are validated and acknowledged.

It is also a place where we can read about the research into wpb and get information that empowers us.

We remain anonymous through fear.

Thank you for all that you do.

In solidarity,

Aphra Behn

Tell the truth about life at Kingston University

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Tell the truth about life at Kingston University":

I'll tell you why -- it's because they have friends in high places, and so who cares what anyone else thinks or feels?

Look closely at who the Tribunal Chairs/Judges are in some of these cases. See which ones worked for the bullies in the past. A lot can be gleaned this way.

Take a look at these links:-

Note who represents the Post Office:-

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/728_93_1401.html&query=zuke&method=boolean

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/1139_97_0105.html&query=zuke&method=boolean

And then note the Chair of the original Employment Tribunal:-

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKEAT/2007/0008_07_2803.html&query=zuke&method=boolean

Now note the biographies:-

http://www.ome.uk.com/members_biographies_details.cfm?member=30

http://www.kingston.ac.uk/aboutkingstonuniversity/howtheuniversityworks/boardofgovernors/boardmembers/boardmembersextra/#grencollings

Oh, but there's nothing strange going on here, is there? No, nothing at all... It's ALL above board, isn't it?

The Serial Bully

The serial bully:

• is a convincing, practised liar and when called to account, will make up anything spontaneously to fit their needs at that moment
• has a Jekyll and Hyde nature - is vile, vicious and vindictive in private, but innocent and charming in front of witnesses; no-one can (or wants to) believe this individual has a vindictive nature - only the current target of the serial bully's aggression sees both sides; whilst the Jekyll side is described as "charming" and convincing enough to deceive personnel, management and a tribunal, the Hyde side is frequently described as "evil"; Hyde is the real person, Jekyll is an act
• excels at deception and should never be underestimated in their capacity to deceive
• uses excessive charm and is always plausible and convincing when peers, superiors or others are present (charm can be used to deceive as well as to cover for lack of empathy)
• is glib, shallow and superficial with plenty of fine words and lots of form - but there's no substance
• is possessed of an exceptional verbal facility and will outmanoeuvre most people in verbal interaction, especially at times of conflict
• is often described as smooth, slippery, slimy, ingratiating, fawning, toadying, obsequious, sycophantic
• relies on mimicry, repetition and regurgitation to convince others that he or she is both a "normal" human being and a tough dynamic manager, as in extolling the virtues of the latest management fads and pouring forth the accompanying jargon
• is unusually skilled in being able to anticipate what people want to hear and then saying it plausibly
• cannot be trusted or relied upon
• fails to fulfil commitments
• is emotionally retarded with an arrested level of emotional development; whilst language and intellect may appear to be that of an adult, the bully displays the emotional age of a five-year-old
• is emotionally immature and emotionally untrustworthy
• exhibits unusual and inappropriate attitudes to sexual matters, sexual behaviour and bodily functions; underneath the charming exterior there are often suspicions or hints of sex discrimination and sexual harassment, perhaps also sexual dysfunction, sexual inadequacy, sexual perversion, sexual violence or sexual abuse
• in a relationship, is incapable of initiating or sustaining intimacy
• holds deep prejudices (eg against the opposite gender, people of a different sexual orientation, other cultures and religious beliefs, foreigners, etc - prejudiced people are unvaryingly unimaginative) but goes to great lengths to keep this prejudicial aspect of their personality secret
• is self-opinionated and displays arrogance, audacity, a superior sense of entitlement and sense of invulnerability and untouchability
• has a deep-seated contempt of clients in contrast to his or her professed compassion
• is a control freak and has a compulsive need to control everyone and everything you say, do, think and believe; for example, will launch an immediate personal attack attempting to restrict what you are permitted to say if you start talking knowledgeably about psychopathic personality or antisocial personality disorder in their presence - but aggressively maintains the right to talk (usually unknowledgeably) about anything they choose; serial bullies despise anyone who enables others to see through their deception and their mask of sanity
• displays a compulsive need to criticise whilst simultaneously refusing to value, praise and acknowledge others, their achievements, or their existence
• shows a lack of joined-up thinking with conversation that doesn't flow and arguments that don't hold water
• flits from topic to topic so that you come away feeling you've never had a proper conversation
• refuses to be specific and never gives a straight answer
• is evasive and has a Houdini-like ability to escape accountability
• undermines and destroys anyone who the bully perceives to be an adversary, a potential threat, or who can see through the bully's mask
• is adept at creating conflict between those who would otherwise collate incriminating information about them
• is quick to discredit and neutralise anyone who can talk knowledgeably about antisocial or sociopathic behaviors
• may pursue a vindictive vendetta against anyone who dares to held them accountable, perhaps using others' resources and contemptuous of the damage caused to other people and organisations in pursuance of the vendetta
• is also quick to belittle, undermine, denigrate and discredit anyone who calls, attempts to call, or might call the bully to account
• gains gratification from denying people what they are entitled to
• is highly manipulative, especially of people's perceptions and emotions (eg guilt)
• poisons peoples' minds by manipulating their perceptions
• when called upon to share or address the needs and concerns of others, responds with impatience, irritability and aggression
• is arrogant, haughty, high-handed, and a know-all
• often has an overwhelming, unhealthy and narcissistic attention-seeking need to portray themselves as a wonderful, kind, caring and compassionate person, in contrast to their behaviour and treatment of others; the bully sees nothing wrong with their behavior and chooses to remain oblivious to the discrepancy between how they like to be seen and how they are seen by others
• is spiritually dead although may loudly profess some religious belief or affiliation
• is mean-spirited, officious, and often unbelievably petty
• is mean, stingy, and financially untrustworthy
• is greedy, selfish, a parasite and an emotional vampire
• is always a taker and never a giver
• is convinced of their superiority and has an overbearing belief in their qualities of leadership but cannot distinguish between leadership (maturity, decisiveness, assertiveness, co-operation, trust, integrity) and bullying (immaturity, impulsiveness, aggression, manipulation, distrust, deceitfulness)
• often fraudulently claims qualifications, experience, titles, entitlements or affiliations which are ambiguous, misleading, or bogus
• often misses the semantic meaning of language, misinterprets what is said, sometimes wrongly thinking that comments of a satirical, ironic or general negative nature apply to him or herself
• knows the words but not the song
• is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of distortion and fabrication
• sometimes displays a seemingly limitless demonic energy especially when engaged in attention-seeking activities or evasion of accountability and is often a committeeaholic or apparent workaholic.
  

From: http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

Wanted case study for The Guardian

Sophie Robehmed is writing an article for The Guardian on bullying at work of recent graduates. She urgently needs a graduate, recent graduate in the last three years or someone of graduate age who is willing to be identified.

If you are interested, please contact Sophie on sophierobehmed@live.com

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?