'Mobbing' Can Damage More Than Careers, Professors Are Told at Conference

It probably wouldn’t be that hard for faculty members to imagine that academic mobbing — a form of bullying in which members of a department gang up to isolate or humiliate a colleague — could derail their careers. But a discussion of the phenomenon today at the American Association of University Professors’ international conference on globalization, shared governance, and academic freedom illustrated that the consequences can be much worse.

The session, based on a paper titled “Mobbing as a Factor in Faculty Work Life,” began with a gripping story about how colleagues and administrators had ganged up on a highly productive tenured professor — think of being subjected to a stream of trumped-up complaints, ousted from an office, shut out of departmental meetings and committees, accused of an affair with a graduate student, and more. The professor was eventually fired and almost immediately afterward died of a stroke brought on by the stress of it all.

The story, actually a composite of the real-life experiences of several professors who were victims of mobbing, was written by Joan E. Friedenberg, a professor of bilingual education at Florida Atlantic University who herself has experienced academic mobbing. Collapsing many stories into one, she said, allows her to better communicate “the feelings of bewilderment and dread that victims of mobbing feel.”

Ms. Friedenberg and the paper’s co-authors, Mark Schneider, an associate professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, and Kenneth Westhues, a professor of sociology at the University of Waterloo, presented their research at today’s session. Mr. Westhues, who discussed his studies of academic mobbing with The Chronicle in 2006, also offered a handout that included a list of 16 indicators of mobbing. Among them: If rumors are circulating about the target’s supposed misdeeds, if the target is excluded from meetings or not named to committees, or if people are saying the target needs to be punished formally “to be taught a lesson,” it’s likely that mobbing is under way.

But victims should not assume that notifying an administrator will help. Evidence suggests that administrators may find it easier to become part of a mob than to try to stop one, Mr. Schneider said. That’s because administrators are likely to think it’s better to have one person upset with them than a group. And faculty associations, he said, can’t really “confront and expose mobbing unless they are very strong.”

Ms. Friedenberg added that administrators should be forewarned that mobbing can have a boomerang effect on them: Some victims are “driven by detail and an intense need for justice,” she said, and may launch a “significant counterattack.”

From: http://chronicle.com/

'Humiliation' had role in suicide, inquest hears

An inquest into the suicide of a senior fashion lecturer at Southampton Solent University heard that his death may in part have been related to his work. Carl Baybut hanged himself in February, a few days after attending a staff meeting to discuss changes to lecturers' responsibilities.

The University and College Union told Southampton Coroner's Court that the 49-year-old's work problems had "contributed in a significant way" to the stress he had endured before killing himself.

The union's representative, Mark Farwell, said Mr Baybut had been absent from work for about six months. He had just returned when the staff meeting took place. Mr Farwell said the lecturer may have been worried that his teaching duties were set to be withdrawn "without discussion or negotiation".

He said: "From where I sit, that looks like ritualised humiliation because it was done in the public domain among peers. I think Carl felt crestfallen when he left the meeting and (that) contributed in a significant way to the stresses he had in his mind in the days to follow."

Coroner Keith Wiseman concluded that Mr Baybut had taken his own life. Summing up, he said that although there were no significant warnings about what Mr Baybut was to do, there were difficulties relating to his workplace.

A Southampton Solent spokeswoman said the lecturer had experienced periods of ill health, during which he was supported by the university's occupational health service. "During his time as a senior lecturer at the university, there were never any indications that he was contemplating ending his own life," she said.

"It is very important to the university that its working environment is positive and productive. To this end, we will continue to look at any issues that require further examination and action, and we will be taking into account the comments made by the coroner."

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

Also: 'Humiliation' at Southampton Solent University led Carl Baybut to commit suicide

And: 'Humiliation' at Southampton Solent University led Carl Baybut to commit suicide - quote: '...a survey of members had revealed a “culture of bullying” in some areas of the university...'

---------

The name of this higher education institution is: Southampton Solent University. Their slogan is: Become part of the Solent success story. No thanks...

Confidential references - Petition

Job references for research or academic posts are confidential and usually taken up in the selection process prior to interview. Candidates are normally unaware if their references contain personal information or an accurate portrayal of their skills. When researchers submit publications/proposals they may nominate reviewers to assess their work. They later receive anonymous copies of the reports and are often permitted to defend any misconceptions before final submission. The majority of researchers and academics have over 7 years training and skill acquisition; a major investment in resources that can be obliterated by a single vindictive or discriminating reference.

We ask that legislation be introduced to prevent Universities and Research Institutes from selecting candidates for job vacancies through confidential references. We feel that working conditions of researchers and academics would improve with more transparency in the selection process. We request that if references are necessary to select a candidate for a research/academic position then he/she should be given the right to see the reference in order to rectify any misleading statements.

Please sign a petition at:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ConfidentialRefs/

Posted by S.

Harassment Among University Professors and Academic Staff

Harassment is behavior that manifests itself in the form of conduct, actions, and verbal comments, often insidious, aimed at destabilizing an individual. This behavior breaks down the individual’s psychological resistance, often for the purpose of submission. Harassment can lead to the victim’s exit from an organization. Harassment can take the form of injurious comments, unjustified criticism, or openly proffered insults, but it can also include seemingly harmless insinuations and other forms of abuse. A simple act of aggressiveness becomes harassment and has deleterious effects when it continues over a period of time, and when the targeted group or individual is, or is perceived to be, in a situation where it is difficult to mount a defense.

Heinz Leymann (1996a, 1996b) described this phenomenon as a form of psychological terrorism. The acts he terms harassment have the effect of taking away people’s freedom of expression, isolating them, destabilizing them, discrediting them personally and professionally, and restricting their access to resources to which they are normally entitled if they are to perform their work. Harassment can jeopardize the victims’ health and make them feel insecure. Considered separately, the actions constituting harassment may appear harmless, but their constant repetition has pernicious effects.

Several indicators of harassment have been observed in universities. To understand this phenomenon, an ad hoc committee of the Québec Federation of University Professors (FQPPU) conducted a qualitative study of union representatives and faculty members. The study, rich with personal testimony, found that the university culture and context breed harassment and an abusive exercise of power, the effects of which harm the victims, and the university as a whole.

Contrary to what many of us prefer to believe, harassment is rarely the work of perverse individuals who take pleasure in targeting others having the typical victim profile. Instead, we found that harassment ensues from political and organizational choices that impose extra workloads, competition, and an emphasis on individualism as methods of managing and organizing labor.

Québec universities are not immune from the problems faced by other organizations. The underfunding of higher education combined with the growing commodification of university activities and the movement toward the quantification of performance evaluation criteria is the breeding ground for harassment. Some professors, facing too much work and competition for limited resources, take extreme measures to remain successful in the system. Because of the of the discourse that urges professors “to keep their noses to the grindstone,” to embrace the virtues of pride, excellence, and economic realism, we have observed practices that surreptitiously corrupt the work ethic by subjecting professors to excessive competition and accounting management strategies that are foreign to the idea of quality research and training. We have also observed practices that make it seem normal to consider people as instruments and resources to be manipulated and burned out.

“What I learned from my experience is that, in the university hierarchy, you have to be prepared to fight like a tiger. And if you don’t have the stomach for that, you just have to lie low. I never would have said that three or four years ago.”—a comment by a professor in an FQPPU focus group In the university milieu, harassment generally occurs at key points in a professor’s career—during hiring, performance evaluation, and the time leading to the granting of permanent status or tenure. It can also come into play in the major decisions governing university activities, especially during the allocation of teaching duties and budgets or when setting development
priorities.

Legitimate formal and informal powers are exploited not only by people in administrative positions, but by colleagues prepared to take advantage of others. Harassment is often associated with the manipulation of committee work, rules of debate, consensus-making, and the criteria for allocating duties and resources. Certain strategies are regrettably popular in order to get to a professor...

From: http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/SOHPNewsletterV6May2009.pdf

Have a nice day… your P45 is in the post

...The thing about having power is never having to say sorry, never feeling you may have been to blame, or implicated in the destruction of another human being. I cannot imagine that their careers will be jeopardised or hindered, and they will not open a bank statement and become very anxious about diminishing reserves of money. I am angry, upset and devastated. I have also been very foolish to think that I could have won… been invited back, given an apology…

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

Lecturer suspended over allegations of defamation - University of Salford

The situation within the School in question is terrible. The staff are aware of the truth and support the lecturer who is suspended for allegedly harassing this PhD student. That is why there were 74 staff signatures supporting him and this would have been greater if all staff were contactable when this petition was making the rounds. There are management cronies who support the incessant nepotism and corruption proliferated by the very top of the School. The VC should be ashamed of himself for implying that race is a factor in the production and dissemination of this material. If the VC or Head of School had any integrity whatsoever they would resign, but being men of low calibre in terms of transparency, fairness and honesty, this could be a step too far.

Anonymous

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

Teachers are 'worst school bullies'

Teachers entrusted with preventing bullying in Australian schools are bullying each other at alarming levels, university researchers have found. The biggest bullies are likely to be the principal or other school executives.

In a national online survey of more than 800 teachers, 99.6 per cent said they had experienced bullying in the workplace.

The Australian Catholic University and the University of New England surveyed state, Catholic and independent school teachers in 2007. The survey found that power imbalance was a factor in staff bullying.

Deidre Duncan, of the ACU, said state school principals received the worst rating for bullying.

"In government schools, the principal receives a significantly higher nomination as a frequent or persistent bully than found in independent or Catholic schools," Professor Duncan said.

"A total of 42 per cent of respondents in government schools said the bully was the principal."

Professor Duncan said such behaviour could be expected in "fairly bureaucratic organisations".

The behaviour most commonly identified by teachers as bullying was the withholding of information that affected performance, followed by the questioning of decisions, procedures and judgment.

Teachers also reported being bullied by parents.

Processor Duncan and co-researcher Dan Riley recommended a bullying ombudsman be appointed for teachers, awareness of staff bullying be raised, and a staff bullying register be established at each school.

Queensland Teachers' Union president Steve Ryan said teacher bullying was not as high as the voluntary on-line survey suggested but "it does represent an issue we are well aware of". He said more state government-funded workplace advisers were needed.

Education Minister Geoff Wilson said the research was a concern and he would ask his department to look into it.

From: http://www.news.com.au

A signature trademark of Polytechnics is the bullying of academics at all levels...

Dear Editor,

I recently found an article on the merits of the Polytechnic becoming a University, see website http://www.newera.com.na/article.php?articleid=1943 which stated the case against the Polytechnic becoming a University very clearly (although I have some reservations with respect to part of the content). I would add my voice and concerns to those of that author.

Primarily, a University is a place of Higher Education which extols the following values:
• High academic achievement
• Ethical and moral leadership in the academic field
• The value of learning and research to society

To demonstrate the above, a University must clearly show that it behaves in a manner which supports those values. I will show, through several examples, how the Polytechnic, primarily due to lack of senior leadership, fails in all three areas.

It is inexcusable for an institution to claim for itself the title of University or University of Applied Science without justification and without approval.

It is insufficient for an institution to proclaim high academic achievement without proof. No amount of speeches by the Rector nor spurious claims to already being a University of Applied Science can make it so.

For example, in the School of Information Technology (IT), the curriculum owes little to Computer Science and therefore can ‘apply’ little. Practice and profession in the institute are what counts.

Demonstration by example and not by personal ego and photo opportunity are required.

High academic achievement can only come from the efforts of a well qualified and highly motivated staff coupled with capable students who can be nurtured towards a higher level of understanding of their chosen subjects. The nature and style of teaching and learning changes with the higher levels of academic acheivement. In the final undergraduate year, self study and high levels of personal motivation are required; at Masters level we must insist on the individual student seeking ‘new knowledge’ so that the academic staff become guides and no longer ‘givers of facts’.

When the staff themselves do not have this experience and the executive fail to support such approaches to learning and understanding, then improvement towards true University status will not occur. Yes, there are some very good students in the Polytechnic but they are ill-served currently. Yes, there are many excellent academic staff willing to help the students although they are hindered at every turn.

A signature trademark of the Polytechnic is the bullying of academics at all levels by the executive and self-interest groups which is preventing high academic achievement. Staff become afraid to innovate, afraid to challenge the status quo, afraid to advocate change and afraid to address known poor behaviour by students.

If we take the School of IT as an example, how can it produce masters students/graduates when those staff with relevant MSc’s or their equivalent (an absolute minimum qualification at this level) are not allowed to function and teach at that level? How can a Masters programme exist when there are no PhDs in the relevant field capable of supporting it within the school?
How can genuinely senior and experienced staff function when they must report to the inexperienced self-interest group of expatriate non-Africans who dominate the running of the school?

If we look at the composition of the controlling group within the School of IT at the beginning of the year, there was one staff member with a Doctorate which has more claim to social science than IT, two German members of staff who are not qualified to be lecturers by virtue of their lack of a Masters qualification and any experience of teaching in a University external to Namibia. How did they get their work visas? How were their contracts renewed over qualified Namibians?

Two other Germans do not have qualifications in the IT field (this is true of a further member of the IT staff). Yet despite these abysmal qualifications (that lack relevance to the field of IT and to the school of IT at the higher levels of academic challenge) they are allowed to produce a failing Masters programme and talk of introducing Doctoral study. This is not the way to raise academic standards among the students.

However, it is the way to become a laughing stock in the eyes of the academic world. What use is such a PhD to a Namibian or the aspirations of Namibia? This situation cannot be remedied as long as the Rector shows favour to such a group against the advice of those with greater real experience of academia and management of Universities across the globe.

The Polytechnic does not value such people and this is clearly demonstrated by its apparent belief that there is no need for an Academic Vice Rector to replace those forced out by the inappropriate behaviour of senior administrators and the Rector towards them.

Ethical and moral leadership cannot be demonstrated by words alone. Promotions are sought and given to members of self-interest groups regardless of qualification backed by experience.

Why can an African lecturer with years of experience be denied a senior lecturer post because he does not have a PhD, yet a German without a Masters degree or experience beyond that in the school of IT is campaigned for vigorously by his equally poorly qualified friends? Work permits are regularly obtained for the unqualified yet they are not forthcoming in a timely manner for the honest majority.

Posts are given to people who have lied about the level and nature of their qualifications without due process, contracts are renewed on the same basis. These may be matters for the Anti-Corruption Commission but they also fully demonstrate a lack of propriety and ethical behaviour at the highest level in the Polytechnic which is not appropriate to a University.

Much damage is done to the structure and organisation of academic life by the executives’ open-door policy towards dissidents, trouble-makers and self-interest groups who bypass the lines of supervisory responsibility.

The Rector and the leading administrators must stop allowing audiences to, and accepting accusatory letters from, the unethical schemers behind tales of wrongdoing and malicious gossip whilst denying the poor ‘’accused’’ the opportunity to defend themselves.

These fish-wives are only interested in their own self-advancement and that of their friends. On the grounds of ethical and moral leadership in the administrative field and some academic areas, the Polytechnic fails miserably.

The value of learning and research to society is one of those imponderables which is so beset by the supporters of ‘self-evident truths’ as to be almost impossible to accurately quantify.

However, the Polytechnic must demonstrate it believes in such values if it wishes to become a University. Rigorous standards must be maintained by the academics who should be supported in their efforts by the administrators.

Academics must be led academically by the Professors and not by the poorly qualified committee structure currently favoured by the senior administrators.

Professors /Directors must be allowed to lead academically and not find themselves abused and forced to report through unqualified staff and subject to the whims of self-interest groups. Senior administrators who condone student poor behaviour, eg, plagiarism, are sending a clear message to the student about the value of their qualification. Anyone can ‘’cut and paste’’ from Google, whereas it takes true intellectual merit to make a voyage of discovery in science based on your own efforts. The Polytechnic needs to put in place real academic quality standards through an Academic Vice Rector’s office and not through the administration if it is to achieve University standards in this area.

I have shown only a few of the problems with changing the name of the Polytechnic to a University as a way of highlighting major deficiencies, but perhaps the greatest argument against this is the Rector’s own doubts.

Why did he last year bring in from the USA staff from an institution recently granted University status to show the Polytechnic how to become a University, if he genuinely believes that he already runs a University? The drive for a name change has nothing to offer the nation of Namibia and is simply based on the self-interest of a few.

Namibia has two Universities, leave the higher level degrees to them and focus on improving the general standard of education at the levels a Polytechnic was established for.

From: http://www.newera.com.na

A trip down memory lane...

November 2006 Academic unions have their heads in the sand...

Pierre-Joseph, I think your cartoon is unfair. As a UCU (formerly AUT) casework officer I deal with cases of workplace bullyng constantly. Union officials and lay activists like myself spend a lot of our time and energy trying to support bullied academics. The main problem has been that until recently, workplace bullying was not in itself illegal: it was only illegal if it was discriminatory or could be shown to cause personal injury (very hard to prove in law). Thanks to the Majrowski ruling in the House of Lords, that should now change.

Sue Blackwell
UCU, University of Birmingham

-----------------------------

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said...

Dear Sue,

I have no doubt that good and active union members like yourself and perhaps many more, are indeed interested to support your academic colleagues and work against workplace bullying. You and the other active members of academic unions, is not the problem.

The problem is with the leadership of the our academic unions (AUT + NATFE = UCU), who for many years remained inactive, and in many cases caused harm. I speak not only from personal experience.

Please do not promise that due to the Majrowski rulling things will improve. What of the many who lost their jobs and their health - like myself? How is the damage repaired? I will never be able to practice my job anymore. This is the end of my academic career.

Our union reaction was and is so formulaic, that it has become predictable sadly.

The case below highlights the normal pattern:

"The behaviour of the AUT and their solicitors (Thompsons of Edinburgh) in relation to my case was abominable. It may seem counter-intuitive, but I felt considerably less stressed once I had decided to represent myself than when I had been represented by the AUT's solicitors. The solicitor who initially handled my case failed to advise me that I could have filed my initial claim under the Public Interest Disclosures Act, 1998. This failure had significant ramifications for the way the case was subsequently brought. The same solicitor failed to pass information from ACAS (the Arbitration and Conciliation Advisory Service) to me or from me to ACAS, thus prejudicing the possibility of a settlement without going to an employment tribunal. He also repeatedly failed to reply to my queries. At one point (when the University submitted a large dossier of papers) the case seemed to become too much for him and he passed it on to a junior colleague. She then sent a report to the AUT which managed to get the reason for my resignation wrong and made so many other misrepresentations that I had to send a nine page list of corrections to the AUT's legal aid committee. It was to no avail. The AUT decided to go with the solicitors misrepresentations, conveniently allowing them to avoid funding a potentially lengthy hearing.

The main thing that I learned from my correspondence with AUT officials and their solicitors was that the union subscriptions I had paid since 1986 were a complete waste of money. I urge all AUT members to think very carefully about why they are subscribing to this union and to consider cancelling their membership. I will make the correspondence available to any AUT member who is interested to consult it in London.

Should either the AUT or Thompsons Solicitors wish to contest what is on this page, I am more than prepared to answer them. If necessary, correspondence can be put up here."

And some more cases:

...After 2-3 years of inaction and no support from my union, with the last few months on medication and receiving mental health councelling, all this while on suspension because I tried to expose institutionalised bullying, and while I watch the serial bully being promoted and taking over my office, I very reluctantly decided to write to the top persons in my union a very polite letter reminding them that I have not receivedthe support I needed. This is the reply I received: "Our union does not
have a specialist on workplace bullying to deal with your case now. We do not normally use any specialist consultant...

...After the TUC (Trades Union Congress) I will be writing to the ILO, and then last I will resign my union membership making sure that the media know why...

...The trade unions already see, realise, understand the plague of bullying in the workplace. They are quite happy with it. That is the way things are meant to be. One man's [or woman's] workplace bullying is another man's [or woman's] strong management / flexible workforce mantra...

...It is one thing to have my employers not understanding bullying, and it is another thing if the union itself is ignorant...

...I have no doubt that unions and TUC are hopeless [with workplace bullying]. I still think it is worthwhile showing the world how hopeless they are - at a cost of a stamp...

...The TUC general secretary will say that he has no powers to intervene in the affairs of an individual trade union. The TUC is simply the trade union's trade union... I would have been relatively happier if my trade union had maintained indifference. They ended up working against me by destroying and delaying documents, passing confidential info to my employers, all sorts of things...

...I have first hand experience of one particular union that has sat on its hands twice, in cases I have seen and been involved in. That union of shame is XXXXXX. No wonder so many health workers live in fear, there is no protection whatsoever...

...The actions of my union have damaged my mental health and sense of trust far worse that the bullying of my employer...

Dear Sue, I have no problem accepting that perhaps - as I stated above - you are indeed very active and very concerned about workplace bullying, and as a UCU activist you are perhaps trying hard, BUT we do have a very long way to go, and I for one have paid a very heavy price for the inaction of my union, which left me with NO representation for over 8 months!

The pain of loosing your job, your colleagues, bullying, intimidation, etc, etc is something I can't describe, and all my union rep did was refer me to a web page...
------------------------

So Sally that was in 2006. Now it is 2009... Where have UCU got to?

Letter in THE April 23rd 2009 suggests that UCU have not got very far...

Removing the heads won't stem the rot

...The power in my university is in the hands of those whom I believe are driven by their own egos and their own glory. In this I believe they are supported by an obedient board of governors and a sychophantic union. I have spent a number of years challenging practices in my university in relation to Dignity at Work issues. Several grievances later I have got nowhere. In my experience, the university with the support of its governors, uses its power to prevent effective investigation. When that tactic fails it resorts to buying its way out of trouble. The union does nothing...

So Sally what are you going to do about that? To date my local union rep has managed to write a letter...

I think we need more effective action don't you Sally? Have you been reading the bullied blogger in the THE?

Aphra Behn

Not in my name - VC loses fight for his domain

A former lecturer at the University of Kingston has won the right to continue using the domain name www.sirpeterscott.com - the name of Kingston's vice-chancellor.

Howard Fredrics, a senior lecturer at the university between 2002 and 2006, has used the website to air grievances against Sir Peter Scott and the university.

Sir Peter complained to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), arguing that he had built up "substantial and extensive goodwill" in the name "Sir Peter Scott", that it constituted a trademark and that the site contained "insulting and defamatory material".

Sir Peter said: "Dr Fredrics has been posting inaccurate statements about my colleagues on a website that carries my name, is headed by my photograph and is one of the first websites that comes up if you google me.

"The risk of misunderstanding that I'm responsible for these statements is enormous. There's ... no attempt to curb Dr Fredrics' right to criticise Kingston, but he should do so under his own name."

Dr Fredrics denied the claims, arguing that protecting the website was a freedom of speech issue and insisting that he used it for educational and artistic purposes.

The WIPO did not uphold the vice-chancellor's complaint. It said that he had not acquired sufficient goodwill to establish the name as a trademark, and that Dr Fredrics had not commercially exploited it.

"Even though this case would seem to raise an important issue concerning legitimate criticism and free speech, (our) policy simply does not extend to cases in which the complainant has not established the requisite trademark rights," Alistair Payne, a WIPO panellist, said.

He noted that court proceedings were pending, and suggested that this would be the best forum in which to resolve the matter.

Dr Fredrics is suing Kingston for defamation in connection with a newspaper story published last year. He supplied the Surrey Comet with emails suggesting that an external examiner at Kingston had been pressured into changing a report.

The story included a claim that Kingston had "categorically denied the authenticity of the emails", but a subsequent Quality Assurance Agency investigation considered them to be genuine after the examiner confirmed that the exchange had taken place.

A claim filed by Dr Fredrics at Surrey County Court says his name appeared in the articles and it was obvious to readers that he had provided the emails.

"The university therefore committed an unlawful act of libel by knowingly, deliberately and maliciously breaching the Defamation Act of 1996, causing damage to the claimant's professional and personal reputation," the claim states.

He is asking for unspecified damages and a published apology.

A spokeswoman for Kingston said: "The university's solicitors have advised that the claim is unsustainable, both legally and factually. We will apply to court to have it struck out without a full trial at the earliest opportunity. For legal reasons, we can make no further comment."

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