Workplace Bullies: Taking “Sticks and Stones” to a New Level

We are all dealing with changes big or small as a result of recent economic events, and for the most part, we’re doing our best to take them in stride. One change that I’ve been reading more and more about lately, however, reveals a disturbing twist in the workplace landscape. According to a recent article on BNET, workplace bullies are out of the sandbox and on the rise in offices everywhere.

Okay, maybe not everywhere. But Preparis, Inc. a leader in work force preparedness solutions, forecasts that incidents of workplace violence could potentially rise as down-on-their-luck U.S. workers anticipate more layoffs this quarter and also continue to feel the pressure of putting food on the table for their families during the busy holiday season. As many workers fear that their homes, finances and jobs are threatened, they may turn to desperate measures to make ends meet - or take their stress out on those they work (and feel most comfortable) with. Preparis also mentions some warning signs of high stress that employers should watch out for.

Results from a 2007 WBI-Zogby survey of 7,440 American workers revealed that 37 percent, or an estimated 54 million people, have been bullied at work, and many lawyers say that bullying-related litigation is on the rise, particularly in light of our recent economic woes.

The effects are being felt abroad, too. The UK’s Chartered Management Institute has found that, in comparing recent results of their workplace bullying survey with survey results from three years ago, bullying appears to be on the rise across all organizations. Jo Causon, director of marketing and corporate affairs at CMI, says, “In the current economic climate, the pressure to deliver is more acute than ever, but the need to perform should not be seen as an excuse to bully.” She adds, “Now, more than ever, the ability of the UK’s managers and leaders to set a good example is paramount.”

From: http://thehiringsite.careerbuilder.com

Governors and academics are 'out of touch'

Concerns that some university governing bodies are out of touch with the academic leadership of their institutions have been raised by the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

A survey for the foundation found that although the majority of senior university managers reported that relationships between the governors and the academic board were constructive, a significant minority reported less constructive relationships. One in five managers said relationships were only "sometimes" constructive, while 15 per cent said they were "rarely" constructive. Some 8.5 per cent of governors said relations were "rarely" or "not at all" constructive, and 10 per cent reported that they "don't know" if relations were good or not.

The Office of Public Management surveyed 294 governors and 131 managers at 27 universities across the sector.

The report accompanying the survey, published this week, says that in some institutions surveyed there was "almost no contact" between governing boards and academic boards "whereby not even minutes of the academic/board senate go to the governing body".

"It would certainly appear difficult for higher education institutions to undertake effectively their responsibility for determining educational character (whether formally defined or not) in such circumstances," the report says.

Half of governors and a third of senior managers answered "don't know", "sometimes", "rarely" or "not at all" to a question about whether their universities' employees understand the responsibilities of the governing body.

The report, prepared by Allan Schofield, the director of the Leadership Foundation's governor development programme, notes that little research has been done on how boards can maximise their effectiveness and how effective boards can be distinguished from poor ones.

"Similarly, the four UK higher education funding bodies have identified the increasing importance of governance but have no real way of identifying effectiveness in practice, beyond compliance with regulatory requirements and what is deemed acceptable practice in the sector," Mr Schofield says.

He adds: "In the private sector, it is difficult to conceive of a board being held to be effective where a company is performing less than satisfactorily, however, in higher education it has been perfectly possible to have the situation where corporate governance has had little relationship to the efficiency and effectiveness of teaching and research.

"The case for enhancing governance ... needs to be made not only on the basis of public accountability, but also by demonstrating the 'added value' to institutional performance that effective governance can bring."

From: Times Higher Education

Conduct unbecoming...

In a letter to the Times Higher Education (THE) ('Conduct unbecoming', 5 February 2009) the three authors raise the question of 'the integrity of your magazine'. As indicated by the comments below I, too, wonder whether this is a question that needs to be explored or discussed in the public domain.

I am aware that in 2008, a few months before the University of Leicester was given the THE award of 'University of the Year' - a category for which the THE editor, Ann Mroz, was one of the judges - the THE had received information indicating less than respectable results of staff surveys at the University of Leicester over the previous four years. Some of those results were worse (in percentage terms) than data published by the THE in relation to similar issues at other institutions, for example, the issue of bullying of staff. Yet the THE did not publish the Leicester results, or a letter to the THE in which reference was made to those results.

Since October 2008, when the University of Leicester received the THE award, the THE has included more 'promotional' material relating to that University in its magazine - including in the 'Campus round-up' pages in its edition of 5 February 2009. In those pages, the reader is told that staff are to be given an extra day's holiday this calender year 'in recognition of their contribution towards [the University being given the THE award].' The Vice-Chancellor, Bob Burgess, is quoted as saying that 'the national accolade... is a testament to the very high standing of the university.' The content of this latest material in the THE might lead a cynical reader to wonder whether the University of Leicester is preparing the ground for an application for the THE's forthcoming 'Leadership & Management Awards', for which the editor of the THE, Ann Mroz, will again be one of the judges.

I would like to suggest three questions:

1) Does the THE's apparent enthusiasm for including 'positive' information about the University of Leicester - even when the THE has received negative information (which may indicate an even worse position in respect of the treatment of staff than that highlighted by the THE in relation to other institutions) - add to concerns about the 'integrity of the magazine' or its imprtality or its need to keep the public interest at the top of the agenda?

2) Is the THE now in effect a public relations agency for the University of Leicester?

3) Do the THE criteria for choosing the 'University of the Year' exclude data or questions about the very important issue of the treatment of staff, to include matters such as bullying and suicide or attempted suicide [of staff]?

Anonymous

Egosyntonic

Egosyntonic is a medical term referring to behaviors, values, feelings, which are in harmony with or acceptable to the needs and goals of the ego, or consistent with one's ideal self-image. It is studied in detail in abnormal psychology. Many personality disorders are considered egosyntonic and are therefore nearly impossible to treat. Anorexia Nervosa, a hard-to-treat Type I disorder, is also considered egosyntonic because many of its sufferers deny that they have a problem. It is the opposite of egodystonic. Obsessive compulsive disorder is considered to be an egodystonic disorder, as the thoughts and compulsions experienced or expressed are not consistent with the individual's self-perception.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egosyntonic

The ultimatum Leeds Met put to its vice-chancellor: Face an inquiry or quit

Strife-torn Leeds Metropolitan University has admitted that vice-chancellor Simon Lee quit in the face of allegations about his treatment of staff. Professor Lee was given the choice of resigning or facing a formal inquiry into the allegations.

At a meeting in November, governors' chairman, Ninian Watt told Prof Lee that "serious complaints regarding his treatment of staff had been made by a number of staff in the university in such a way that these could not be ignored".

Mr Watt did not use the word "bullying" but it has been reported that the complainants alleged he had reduced senior colleagues to tears and accused them of disloyalty.

Mr Watt made it clear that only two courses of action were open to Prof Lee: face a formal inquiry or resign. He went on January 14.

In a statement released today, the university says: "The Chair specified the nature of the behaviours alleged, but did not provide the details of individual complaints.

"Prof Lee was advised that two courses of action were open to him: first, that the allegations be formally investigated, during which time Professor Lee would be suspended, or second, that he resign from the University, leaving at the end of the current academic year."

The vice-chancellor denied the allegations but, says the statement, "it was agreed that he would have a period of time to decide which option he would prefer to pursue. At the end of that period he chose to resign."

Leeds Met's chancellor, former Olympic athlete Brendan Foster, resigned last month after his efforts to mediate between Professor Lee and Mr Watt proved fruitless.

In November, after receiving advice from University lawyers and several governors, the Chair of Governors informed Professor Lee that serious complaints regarding his treatment of staff had been made by a number of staff in the university in such a way that these could not be ignored. At no time has the Chair used the word "bullying".

The Chair specified the nature of the behaviours alleged, but did not provide the details of individual complaints. Professor Lee was advised that two courses of action were open to him: first, that the allegations be formally investigated, during which time Professor Lee would be suspended, or second, that he resign from the University, leaving at the end of the current academic year. Professor Lee denied the alleged behaviours.

It was agreed that he would have a period of time to decide which option he would prefer to pursue. At the end of that period he chose to resign.

Discussions took place between the respective legal advisors to negotiate a compromise agreement. This was concluded on 23rd December with an agreement that Professor Lee would announce his resignation in the week commencing 12th January.

Professor Lee has not received details of the individual complaints. The University is not taking formal action on the complaints. The University has not taken disciplinary action against Professor Lee.

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

And: New chief vows no bullying under his regime

Staff demand to know why v-c and chancellor left

The University and College Union branch at Leeds Metropolitan University has called for more transparency over the resignations of the vice-chancellor and chancellor this month.

After a six-hour meeting of the board of governors on 28 January, the university announced that Geoff Hitchins has been made acting chief executive and that Simon Lee, the vice-chancellor, will continue in an “ambassadorial” role only until his departure in August.

Leeds Met gave no further information about the reasons for the departure of Professor Lee.

The UCU branch at Leeds Met unanimously passed a motion this week regretting that “no adequate account of the chancellor and v-c’s departures has been given either by the chancellor, v-c or the board of governors”.

It also demanded “transparency as to the reasons for the v-c’s departure”.

The union’s motion also criticised a “bullying culture” at the university and called for a “collegiate culture”.

Speculation over Professor Lee’s exit is mounting. The most recent edition of the university’s student newspaper, The Met, reported his departure with the headline: “Resigned or pushed?”

Professor Lee did not attend the governors’ meeting on Wednesday. The vice-chancellor’s daily “VC Reflects” column on the Leeds Met website was replaced by a statement from the chairman of the board of governors, Ninian Watt, on 29 January.

On 30 January, Dr Hitchins reiterated in a personal statement on the website that “until he leaves the university, [Professor Lee] will focus on an agreed external ambassadorial role and I will concentrate on the executive management of the university”.

Dr Hitchins said his “immediate task” would be to work with colleagues and trade unions “over key issues and ways of working… it will be business as usual, but inevitably reflecting my collegiate style of leadership and management.

“There is no denying that these are challenging times. My focus has to be on taking the university forward in line with the agreed priorities and obligations. The senior team and I must do all we can to ensure that we retain the confidence of students, staff, governors and other stakeholders and business partners, as we move forward to a new era under the leadership of the next vice-chancellor.”

The Yorkshire Post quoted Dr Hitchins as saying: “There may well be some people who have a concern about the culture of the university. All I can tell you is that there will be no bullying on my watch. I have been appointed because my style is my style, which is different, it is very collegiate.”

From: Times Higher Education

Former PhD student hopes to fund legal action via web

A disaffected student has set up an internet campaign in a bid to raise £20,000 to sue the university where he failed to obtain his PhD.

Paul Jones, 26, who was a graduate teaching assistant at the University of Exeter Business School until last year, claims that unreasonable teaching demands were placed on him and that he received inadequate supervision after his tutor went on sabbatical and left him in charge of a specialist third-year undergraduate teaching module.

His website, student4justice.com, aims to reveal the "darker, less well documented world of academia". It is dedicated to students deemed to be "snotty and litigious" by their universities.

Last year, Mr Jones made an official complaint to the university. He went through all four stages of Exeter's grievance procedure, but his complaints were not upheld. As "a gesture of goodwill", the university has offered to pay a year's tuition fees at another institution to fund the completion of Mr Jones' thesis. It also agreed to pay for the additional work he undertook delivering the module.

But Mr Jones, who says he has been left depressed by the experience and is now unemployed, hopes to raise funds through his website to bring legal action against Exeter for breach of contract.

"This is the only means of recourse I can pursue against the university that will allow me to seek damages, with the ultimate aim of allowing me to continue with my studies at an alternative university," the website claims.

The site, which names all the academics involved, includes extracts from emails and statements Mr Jones said he had uncovered using the Data Protection Act.

One email published on the site, written to colleagues by Steve Brown, head of the university's department of management, warned of "a few 'worried points' on Paul Jones' teaching for the first semester".

"As Paul is a GTA, it would be unwise to let him take entire charge of the module, especially a specialist third-year module, even though I understand it is 'in his area'," Professor Brown wrote.

"My fear is that students are becoming increasingly 'snotty' - litigious even - and I think we need to cover all the angles with this."

He asked Janet Borgerson, a reader in philosophy and management who was responsible for the module that Mr Jones was teaching, to "make sure that Paul is ready to deliver the material on this - he may need more support so that he has course and other material ready.

"I hope this isn't coming across as too paranoid but I just want to make sure that we don't have a bunch of students sending in letters and so on."

Mr Jones hopes his website will "highlight the plight of postgraduate students who are ... neglected or subject to mounting pressure to accept teaching duties traditionally performed by senior academic staff".

In a statement, Exeter said it had looked "in great detail" at Mr Jones' complaints but that none was upheld. "The hearings did not accept that unreasonable teaching demands were placed on Mr Jones without due regard for the likely consequences for his ability to complete his PhD studies," the statement says.

It adds that Mr Jones had been "well qualified" to deliver the module, "given that he was at the time already an experienced graduate teaching assistant".

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

...a fudge

Tomorrow there will be an extraordinary meeting of the Board of Governors. Perhaps we will get the truth and Simon Lee [VC of Leeds Met] will be exposed publicly for the psychopath he is. More likely we will witness a fudge. The management team that supported Simon Lee will remain in place and will carry on as before.

Anonymous

Cases of political psychology

Southern Illinois University and the American Psychological Association (APA)

In this case, an SIUC faculty member was mobbed by the university administration with the help of some of her departmental colleagues because they disliked her opinions, which were expressed through grievances, guest columns and letters to the editor, speeches, union activism, and by joining in a suit with other faculty members against the board of trustees to protest the firing of a popular chancellor. As a result, her office was moved out of the department and her mail was stolen. Frequent whispering campaigns were held in the hallways by colleagues who quickly scattered behind slammed doors when she was sighted. She was unjustly blamed for negative tenure votes and missing department materials. The nameplate on her door was vandalized and she learned that she was referred to as "the little twerp" by some.

The university administration then hired a licensed psychologist who, the faculty member was told, would conduct counseling and conflict resolution for her deeply divided department, but who instead wrote a report for the administration indicating that the faculty member was destructive and in need of discipline and professional help. The administration disseminated the psychologist's report to over 20 people on the campus.

In this case, the psychologist made an unsubstantiated assessment of the faculty member based solely on what the faculty member's "enemies" had said about her. The psychologist made no effort to verify any of the rumors she had heard and instead wrote them as fact in her reports and made recommendations based on them. As part of the counseling and conflict resolution process, the psychologist also carried on e-mail communication with the faculty member but forwarded this communication to the university's administration without the faculty member's knowledge or permission. The psychologist never told the faculty member that there would be any limits to confidentiality nor did she tell her what process she would be following or that she would be writing reports to the administration. Obviously, if there had been any legitimacy to the psychologist's conclusions and report, the matter would have been handled privately and compassionately by the university's human resources staff.

After complaining about the psychologist, the faculty member was horrified to discover one day that someone was following her car and later saw correspondence between the administration and the psychologist's lawyer-husband suggesting that private investigators be used to seek a way to fire her. Indeed, notes associated with a meeting among university administrators and its chief counsel show that a detailed plan for her termination seemed to be in place.

The faculty member sued the provost, department chair, and psychologist in federal court for conspiring to chill her first amendment rights. She also sued the psychologist for malpractice and filed complaints against the psychologist with the American Psychological Association (APA). The three defendants in the federal lawsuit received legal defense services by the university. The federal lawsuit was settled out of court, with the faculty member receiving a public apology from the university, a year off with pay, and substantial monetary compensation. The malpractice lawsuit against the psychologist is still being prosecuted after five years. The psychologist's position in the claims against her is that consulting psychologists function as management consultants and do not have to follow the APA code of Ethics. Despite having a current state license to practice psychology, serving as head of a university's counseling center at the time, and holding offices in the American Psychological Association, this psychologist essentially didn't consider herself to be a psychologist and seemed to believe that only therapists need to follow ethical codes.

One of the most troubling aspects of this case is the scandalous lack of action by the APA. When the faculty member first filed a complaint with the APA Ethics Office, the Ethics Office opened an investigation and then dismissed it for lack of sufficient evidence. The faculty member then deposed the psychologist and sent the deposition testimony to the most renowned psychologist ethics expert in the U.S. who found numerous serious ethics violations by the psychologist. The faculty member sent the deposition transcript and the expert's report back to the APA and requested that the case be re-opened. This time the evidence was solid. Although the APA technically re-opened the case, it stayed the investigation when the psychologist was elected President of the Consulting Psychology Division of the APA. The APA claimed it was staying the investigation because there was pending litigation; however, it did not stay the investigation the first time, with pending litigation, when there was less evidence available and when the psychologist did not hold a high office. It has been 5 years since the faculty member first filed a complaint with the APA, and to this day, no known disciplinary action has been taken.

From: http://www.psychologistethics.net/

Is this harassment?

This guy goes around telling his support staff that unless they meet the arbitrary targets he set for them, then their position will become untenable. Is this harassment?

Anonymous