Mobbing and Psychological Terror at Workplaces

In recent years, the existence of a significant problem in workplaces has been documented in Sweden and other countries. It involves employees "ganging up" on a target employee and subjecting him or her to psychological harassment. This "mobbing" behavior results in severe psychological and occupational consequences for the victim...

This phenomena has been called "mobbing," "ganging up on someone" or psychic terror. It occurs as schisms, where the victim is subjected to a systematic stigmatizing through, inter alia, injustices (encroachment of a person's rights), which after a few years can mean that the person in question is unable to find employment in his/her specific trade. Those responsible for this tragic destiny can either be workmates or management...

Psychical terror or mobbing in working life means hostile and unethical communication which is directed in a systematic way by one or a number of persons mainly toward one individual. There are also cases where such mobbing is mutual until one of the participants becomes the underdog. These actions take place often (almost every day) and over a long period (at least for six months) and, because of this frequency and duration, result in considerable psychic, psychosomatic and social misery. This definition eliminates temporary conflicts and focuses on the transition zone where the psychosocial situation starts to result in psychiatric and/or psychosomatic pathological states...

It seems to be a general clinical experience among physicians working in occupational health departments that immediate and grave psychosomatic effects can be observed. I have located the number of suicides having this background as being between 100 and 300; this means that about 10% -15% of the total number of suicides in Sweden each year have this type of background...

My experience, gained from insight into a large number of conflicts, is that legal matters are not usually a hindrance. Often the weaker party, the one threatened with expulsion, wants some sort of honorable rehabilitation or an assurance that s/he was not solely the guilty party in the conflict. It is puzzling that we have never found a single case where the employer, as the other party, could find himself at fault and give the employee some redress for wrongs suffered. Usually, in cases where the conflict has gotten completely out of hand, the employer representative demands some form of .total capitulation to his demands. As I have said, my experience inclines me to think that this kind of experienced violation is the factor which drives the situation to its climax...

From: Heinz Leymann, “Mobbing and Psychological Terror at Workplaces,” Violence and Victims 5 (1990), 119-126, available at: http://www.mobbingportal.com/leymannmain.html

Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK - Guidance on Whistleblowing

1. Universities and colleges of higher education, like other public bodies, have a duty to conduct their affairs in a responsible and transparent way and to take into account both the requirements of funding bodies (including of course the Funding Councils) and the standards set out in the reports of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. In addition, they are committed to the principles of academic freedom embodied in their own charters, statutes and articles of government, and enshrined in the Education Reform Act 1988.

2. Members of staff are often the first to know when things are going wrong in an institution, whether this concerns financial malpractice, the abrogation of appropriate and agreed procedures, or departures from the statutory or other requirements for good governance. All institutions should establish official channels through which such concerns can be raised, for example through heads of department, at official committees, or through staff representatives, including the accredited trades unions. In the normal course of events, concerns should be raised through these channels. But members of staff often feel, rightly or wrongly, that their own position in the institution will be jeopardised if they raise a particular concern in this way, and sometimes the usual channels may indeed be inappropriate.

3. Good practice would suggest that:

a. Allegations of injustice or discrimination against individuals should be dealt with under established procedures approved by the governing body or, if it is a student grievance, through the machinery established by the institution for this purpose.

b. Allegations about an individual’s financial conduct should normally be made to the head of internal audit. He/she is required to have direct reporting relationships both with the vice-chancellor/principal/chief executive, as the officer designated by the governing body and by the Funding Council to be accountable for the control of the institution’s funds, and with the audit committee established by the governing body. Internal audit should investigate the allegation and report to a higher authority as appropriate. Where, for whatever reason, the person making the allegation considers it inappropriate to make it to the head of internal audit, the provisions of sub-paragraph c apply.

c. Allegations about other issues could concern, for example, the behaviour of a senior officer of the institution, or a lay/independent member of the governing body, or the propriety of committee or other collective decisions. Such allegations should be made, as the person making the allegation deems appropriate, to the vice-chancellor/principal/chief executive, or to the secretary/registrar/clerk to the governing body, or to the chair of the governing body. If for any reason none of these individuals is deemed to be appropriate, the allegation should be made to the chair of the audit committee.

4. In any case where an allegation is made under sub-paragraphs 3b and 3c, the person to whom the allegation is made should make a record of its receipt and of what action is taken. Any allegation made under this procedure shall normally be the subject of a preliminary investigation either by the person to whom the allegation is made or more usually by a person or persons appointed by him/her. Institutions should take steps to ensure that investigations are not carried out by the person who may ultimately have to reach a decision on the matter. Where no investigation is carried out, and the allegation is effectively dismissed, the person making the allegation should be informed and given the opportunity to repeat the allegation to some other person or authority within the institution. This need not be done where an allegation is dismissed after an investigation. The person or persons against whom the allegation is made must also be told of it and the evidence supporting it. They should be allowed to comment before the investigation is concluded and a report made. The results of the investigation shall be reported to the audit committee.

5. Any person making an allegation under sub-paragraphs 3b or 3c should be guaranteed that the allegation will be regarded as confidential to the receiver until a formal investigation is launched. Thereafter, the identity of the person making the allegation may be kept confidential, if requested, unless this is incompatible with a fair investigation, or if there is an overriding reason for disclosure (for example, if police involvement is required). Provided the allegation has been made lawfully, without malice and in the public interest, the employment position of the person should not be disadvantaged because he/she made the allegation.

6. Institutions may wish to consider using the policy checklist proposed by Public Concern at Work so far as it applies to higher education institutions.

March 2009
------------
Lots of wishful thinking above, and assumptions that HEIs can self-govern according to the principles above, nevertheless worth knowing so we can try to hold them accountable.

From: http://www.hefce.ac.uk

Open letter

An extract from an open letter to my prestigious research university – prompted by Carl’s death. I apologise to friends and family of Carl for using the space in the way that I have done. I hope you will understand. I think Carl would have done.

…these practices feel relentless and yet you claim there is no evidence of workplace bullying. As teachers we know that until you get the behaviour right it is impossible to achieve any real learning. If you can’t 'get the behaviour right', with the support of some of the governors, then I don’t believe anyone can. The power is in your hands.

We have to address the reality and speak the truth; that requires both courage and trust – a philosophical opportunity to review what is happening. Not just using the jargon without touching real life.

Cases of alleged workplace bullying such as mine (and Carl’s) are very serious. You know that.

I do not know if you are aware of the case at Solent University which is currently being debated on the Times Higher blog. There are some links to my case so you may find it useful to review what is being said.

I can assure both you and the university that I am mentally very strong so I would assure you that there is no danger that I would take my own life as Carl has done. In saying this I do not mean any disrespect to Carl - in some ways his death has helped me. It could so easily have been the other way round. However – I do believe that the university – key members of senior management - have taken completely unacceptable risks with regard to my ability to cope with this situation.

On the Times Higher blog you will see reference to Carl’s university and the kind of debates that his death has prompted in this space that new technology has created. There is also testimony from a close friend of Carl’s – both on this blog and the Times Higher blog. She describes the effects of the long-term humiliation on Carl – crying in his kitchen after yet another meeting where he had been humiliated.

In the end he could no longer cope with the pain and took his own life. We can read about the response of the university – their defence that no one had taken out a grievance against the manager of Carl’s department.

There are others – Diana Winstanly from Kingston – whose death is recorded somewhere on this blog. My pain is also recorded on this blog - over a period of years. This blog has been and continues to be my lifeline in my darkest and bleakest moments… when the bottle of pills seems so tempting.

Carl’s close friend is now under police surveillance and cannot defend herself. The state too colludes it would seem in these cases. She has been threatened 3 times with legal action by the university... 1984 is alive and well.

As you have agreed – cases of workplace bullying are very serious. As is evidenced by Carl’s case they can spiral out of control in ways that cannot be foreseen. – sometimes with a tragic loss of life.

I would agree that spaces such as blogs are not the best place to debate these issues – yet they are the only spaces available for those of us who believe that we are targets of workplace bullying.

Silence and denial is not the way forward. I would ask that the university…

**********************************

I cannot include any more as that would reveal to my university who I am.

I would urge anyone who is concerned about workplace bullying to speak out in their university - find someone with the power and the courage to help you.

Write a letter to you MP.

Write to anyone who has the power to take this issue forward before we have any more deaths.

In solidarity - and thinking of you Carl - that last walk...

Aphra Behn

Bullying and suicide, Part 2

...Some victims of bullying pay the ultimate price by taking their own lives. There have been some attempts to estimate the number of suicides linked to workplace bullying but these attempts have been speculative as few people take their own lives for one single reason. This should not be taken as an indication that we think the numbers insubstantial or not worth worrying about. On the contrary, the seriousness of the problem is expressed in one Norwegian study which concluded that as many as 40 per cent of the most frequently bullied victims admitted to having contemplated suicide at some stage...

From: Workplace Bullying, what we know, who is to blame, and what can we do?

Bullying and suicide

Britain has one of the highest suicide rates in Europe. Each year in the UK over 5000 people take their life. The Samaritans estimate that in the UK there is a suicide every 82 minutes. The charity Depression Alliance estimates that each year there are around 19,000 suicide attempts by UK adolescents whilst more than 2 million children attend GP's surgeries with some kind of psychological or emotional problem.

Each day, two people under the age of 24 commit suicide. In 1997, 1757 young adult males committed suicide whilst only 412 females committed suicide. One reason is thought to be because males choose more lethal (and thus successful) methods of suicide such as hanging, shooting or jumping in front of a train. Around 200 people commit suicide by train every year, with another 50 killing themselves on the London underground. The death of Brian Drysdale at Ufton Nervet in Berkshire in November 2004 was believed to be a suicide. In the UK, suicide has taken over from road accidents as the number one cause of death for young adult males in the age range 18-24.

Suicide statistics show that in the UK at least 16 children kill themselves each year because they are being bullied at school and no-one in authority is doing anything about it. The number of adults who commit suicide because of bullying, harassment and violence is unknown, but my guess is that bullying is a factor in a significant number of these 5000 suicides.

The suicide rate for 18-24-year-old males has jumped from 58 deaths per million of population in 1974 to 170 deaths per million in 1997. In October 1999, the government reported that the number of young males who commit suicide each year in the UK had doubled over the last ten years. With the support of other organisations including the Football Association, the government announced a programme aiming to cut the suicide rate by at least 25% in 10 years. One of the problems of young male suicide identified was men's reluctance to confide their problems in others, even their peers.

In inner city areas, over 43% of children have considered suicide and one in six children under the age of 11 have attempted suicide. Common causes cited include bullying, abuse, poverty, homelessness, and alcohol abuse.

France also has a high suicide rate; each year there are around around 200,000 attempted suicides by 15-25-year-olds, including 40-60,000 suicide attempts serious enough to warrant hospitalisation, and around 800 successful suicides.

A UK Mental Health Foundation survey published in February 2001 revealed that half of university students showed signs of clinical anxiety whilst more than 10% suffered from clinical depression. Although specific causes are hard to identify, those most often cited include student loans and debt, bullying, constant academic expectations through tests and exams, plus the sudden pressures of being away from home.

From: http://www.bullyonline.org

Bullying of lecturers in Higher Education

Callers from the education sector including universities have accounted for around 20% of all calls and enquiries to Bully OnLine since 1996. A survey published in the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) on 16 September 2005 found the bullying is common in the academic workplace, with 40% or respondents saying they were currently the target of bullying. Lead researcher Petra Boynton, a University College London psychologist, uncovered 800 almost identical cases of bullying.

The survey revealed that those most likely to report being bullied were in the caring or support professions, such as social sciences - particularly psychology - health and medicine and academic support or human resources. It also indicated that senior academic staff - senior lecturers and professors - are as likely to be bullied as junior or contract staff. University HR departments, rather than helping victims, were seen by respondents as protecting institutions and bullies.

From: http://www.bullyonline.org

Is your academic manager a sociopath?

• Glibness and Superficial Charm

• Manipulative and Conning
  They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
  
  
• Grandiose Sense of Self
  Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
  
  
• Pathological Lying
  Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
  
  
• Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
  A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
  
  
• Shallow Emotions
  When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
  
  
• Incapacity for Love
  
  
• Need for Stimulation
  Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
  
  
• Callousness/Lack of Empathy Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

From: Profile of the Sociopath

According to Martha Stout, 1 in 25 ordinary Americans secretly has no conscience and can do anything at all without feeling guilty. One wonders about the percentage of sociopath academic managers... Worth remembering that most serial bullies are sociopaths.

Pinker leads international attack on UCL's 'unjust' treatment of scholar

An international group of scholars has launched a scathing attack on an elite UK university, accusing it of "extraordinary and unjust" treatment of an academic.

The 25 eminent researchers from four continents, led by Steven Pinker of Harvard University, have written to University College London voicing "strong concern" over what they say is the "summary suspension and enforced silence" of Heather van der Lely, director of UCL's Centre for Developmental Language Disorders and Cognitive Neuroscience.

Internationally acclaimed Professor van der Lely, 53, was suspended on charges of insubordination by UCL last November after she refused to move to a smaller laboratory space, which she felt was inadequate for her research.

Claiming she has been victimised, Professor van der Lely is pursuing a case against the university at an employment tribunal.

The letter, sent by the group to Sir Stephen Wall, chair of UCL's council, says: "Professor van der Lely has been barred from entering her laboratory, accessing her data, managing her grants, using her email and communicating with her students and colleagues at UCL.

"This is an extraordinary and unjust punishment. The career of a scientist depends on continuous interaction with students, collaborators, funding agencies and research subjects."

The letter goes on to criticise UCL for what it says is "disrespect" for free speech. "For a university to bar its own faculty and students from communicating with a colleague on research matters ... is an affront to the liberal values that are the basis of a modern university."

It concludes by demanding her reinstatement: "We call on the administration to reinstate her, and to treat her according to principles of fairness and due process."

Professor Pinker, a renowned experimental psychologist and author of several hugely successful books on science, including The Blank Slate and The Stuff of Thought, was collaborating on a project with Professor van der Lely at the time of her suspension.

He has previously written to UCL's provost, Malcolm Grant, about the case and said the intention of the latest letter, seen exclusively by Times Higher Education, was to make clear that the scientific community was "surprised" at the treatment of his erstwhile colleague and to indicate the esteem in which she is held.

"The scientific community is watching," he warned. "There are standards for fair treatment, and this is something that other people care about."

Professor van der Lely was unaware of the letter when contacted by Times Higher Education. She referred the matter to her lawyer.

She said only that she was "extraordinarily touched" by the support of her fellow academics and that she had been barred from talking about the case.

Her solicitor, Shah Qureshi, a partner at the law firm Bindmans, confirmed that she had issued proceedings at the central London employment tribunal.

"She believes she has been victimised and subjected to disproportionate disciplinary action by UCL after raising public interest disclosures, including inadequate facilities likely to have an impact on the health and safety of children, and potential breach of patient confidentiality," he said in a statement. "She believes her actions have led to her demotion and suspension since November 2008."

Mr Qureshi said that despite the professor's being an internationally recognised expert in developmental language disorders, she felt that her scientific standing was "questioned in a way that male colleagues', including those junior to her, was not".

He added that Professor van der Lely suffered from lymphoedema - a disability causing swelling in the legs and difficulties in mobility - and felt that senior management were "reluctant to acknowledge this and failed to provide adequate working space and safe working temperatures".

A spokesman for the university said: "UCL is not in a position to comment on this case, other than to say that this a complex matter concerning disciplinary allegations and grievances that are in the process of being examined under provisions contained within UCL's charter and statutes. Sir Stephen Wall has written direct to the authors of the letter to address their concerns."

Signatories to the letter include academics from UCL and Harvard, as well as scientists from other UK and US institutions and from France, Germany, Denmark, Australia, Italy, Romania, Israel and Poland.

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

Note:
1. This particular academic is well-known and well-networked. By default, this case attracts national and international attention. Sadly, not all academics manage to attract such support.
2. This case is not an isolated case. We know of similar cases within the Russell Group in the UK, where prominent academics are going through a ritual of elimination.

The bastards in charge of 'Human Resources'

...I was totally naive over the role of human resources. I really thought they were supposed to be “in the middle” and not taking sides. What happened was a complete surprise in terms of their bias and attempts to subvert me. Constant letters, emails – taking care NOT to make actual contact. It was a shocking revelation which left me in a void. The union was my only lifeline, a mixture of my local contact treading water in quicksand with me hopeful of a cavalry charge from regional office, which never came.

Looking back, there was one critical theme to the way the whole organisation worked – this was to isolate me. The university acted illegally with the directive that I could not talk or socialise with anyone there. This was in my view an act that required the severest of reprimands – no vice-chancellor should be able to hold office with such a culture of totalitarian malice and disregard for the legal process. There cannot be more than a handful of grievances within a university at any one time and vice-chancellors should see it as their duty to ask questions and clarify how matters are progressing.

I cannot see how matters will change in universities until there is a willingness from good people with power to act. We must presume there are good people willing to do something. They need to explore reform, which includes an equitable hearing for staff who feel they are treated in ways that exemplify shoddy management and duplicity…

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

Vice-Chancellor of Kingston University Accused of Misappropriating Public Funds

According to a public interest disclosure filed with the Higher Education Funding Council of England, Kingston University's Vice-Chancellor allegedly used public funds reserved for education and research to pay for his personal legal action against a former staff member. The disclosure alleges that Sir George Scott, aka Sir Peter Scott, utilized his position as Vice-Chancellor to get the University to pay for his failed complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organisation against former Senior Lecturer, Dr Howard Fredrics.

In March 2009, Professor Sir George Scott filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) against former Senior Lecturer, Dr Howard Fredrics. The complaint sought to seize control of Dr Fredrics' previously registered domain name, sirpeterscott.com under the guise that the domain breached trademark rights. The initial complaint was lodged by Kingston University's solicitors, Charles Russell Solictiors, who indicated that they were acting for the University. In their May 2009 ruling, WIPO found, however, that the complaint had, indeed, been filed on behalf of Professor Scott, the University's Vice-Chancellor. WIPO also dismissed the complaint in its entirety on the grounds that Prof Scott was not entitled to claim trademark rights in the domain name in question.

Shortly thereafter, a public interest disclosure was filed by an unnamed individual(s) with the Higher Education Funding Council of England, alleging that Prof Scott and the University had improperly used public funds, earmarked for spending on the provision of education and for research activities, on Prof Scott's misconceived personal legal complaint to WIPO. According to the disclosure, at least $1500.00 was spent on filing fees alone, with the likelihood that substantial additional sums were spent on legal fees to launch the complaint.

The outcome to an investigation by HEFCE into the allegations is currently pending.

From: http://publish.indymedia.org.uk