Is my manager's conduct fair?

Anonymous asks...

I had a staff development review recently. My manager refused to fill in the section on overall performance.

I am a researcher. He cannot prove anything againts me and he cannot understand my work, but the funding body, a private company, repeatedly made comments on my work over the last year that were proven to be wrong after fighting my corner.

Can someone please advise if my manager's conduct is fair?

Critiques of the anti-bullying movement and responses to them - Part 2

Anonymous said:

I am struck by Kennemer's use of the term 'terrorism' because that is exactly how I described my own mobbing experience. I used to refer to my workplace as 'the minefield' because I never knew when or how the next psychological booby trap was going to explode, usually on email, like a sniper attack. When I used the term 'terrorism' in a letter of grievance, the term was then used against me in disciplinary proceedings as an example of my 'uncollegial' and 'extreme' behaviour towards the bullies. It is simply appalling the way complacent senior management reward the complacent, do-nothing, smugly self-satisfied 'hangers on', as Westhues calls them. They stick their noses into the business of their hard-working targets whose only crime is to do their jobs a bit too diligently and too brilliantly to ensure the perpetuation ad infinitum of the complacency and unambitious mediocrity of their academic workplace.

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