A Kingston University academic has been suspended after 'trying to rally' students against plans to close her department.
Sources said today Dr Sarah Sayce, head of the School of Planning and Surveying, had been suspended after emailing students telling them the university had opened a consultation on the plans.
A Kingston University spokeswoman said: “The university is unable to comment on the employment status of individual members of staff.”
One student described Dr Sayce as “an extremely competent and informed academic”, and said she had written to “encourage us to fight for the decision and to save our school.”
Under the proposals 14 teaching jobs could be lost and 18 students could lose their places, after the university said planning courses could be closed due to poor recruitment figures.
Vice-chancellor Prof Julius Weinberg said on Friday: “The university will do everything it can to ensure these students can complete their studies, either on a similar alternative course at Kingston or at another university.”
Fresher Rachel Stanislaus, 18, a planning student, said last week she was shocked by the news.
She said: “What they have said is they will try and help us to find new places.
“It is not something you expect when you sign up to do a degree. You make life changes.”
Students on other courses would move to different areas of the university under the plans, subject to a 30-day consultation.
From: http://www.surreycomet.co.uk
February 27, 2014
January 29, 2014
What is Bullying? Brunel academic on panel providing new definition for the USA
Leading expert in bullying behaviour, Brunel's Professor Ian Rivers
has recently finished working with the US government to agree a
consistent definition of bullying for use across the country.
The Uniform Bullying Definition Project has been agreed at a federal level so there is consistency of measurement across the US, which individual states can opt to use in the national surveillance surveys. These surveys look at a sample of children from across the country every two years (such as the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) and the Health Behaviors in School-age Children (HBSC) survey). This definition doesn't supersede individual state definitions which are enshrined in law.
Unlike the US, the UK doesn't have an agreed definition or approach to tackling bullying, neither does it survey the health and wellbeing of pupils in schools so it is hard to directly translate this research. The British government has committed to address and give guidance on bullying – with £2million to the BeatBullying charity to tackle cyber-bullying.
As the only British representative on a panel made up of US and Canadian academics, Professor Rivers found the differences between how the two countries deal with bullying striking: "There is lots of coverage around bullying but are we measuring the same thing? It would help to have a consistent baseline definition which would underpin work to tackle cyber-bullying and develop guidance for schools. Schools need guidance on what bullying is and is not, how to measure it, record it, and build interventions around knowledge of their own schools' circumstances. We can learn a great deal from the approach taken in the US to reach a consensus and measure behaviour systematically."
However, there are other difficulties around providing a definition of bullying as Professor Rivers explains, "Bullying is a very subjective experience and the definition often describes the behaviour of the perpetrator whereas the measurement is often from the perspective of the victim. How we operationalise our understanding of bullying and apply it in school or work-based contexts differs".
Professor Rivers' involvement in this important work will continue as the panel will meet regularly to refine this definition.
The agreed US Definition of Bullying Among Youths:
Bullying is any unwanted aggressive behaviour(s) by another youth or group of youths who are not siblings or current dating partners that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated. Bullying may inflict harm or distress on the targeted youth including physical, psychological, social, or educational harm.
From: http://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/news-items/ne_351985
The Uniform Bullying Definition Project has been agreed at a federal level so there is consistency of measurement across the US, which individual states can opt to use in the national surveillance surveys. These surveys look at a sample of children from across the country every two years (such as the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) and the Health Behaviors in School-age Children (HBSC) survey). This definition doesn't supersede individual state definitions which are enshrined in law.
Unlike the US, the UK doesn't have an agreed definition or approach to tackling bullying, neither does it survey the health and wellbeing of pupils in schools so it is hard to directly translate this research. The British government has committed to address and give guidance on bullying – with £2million to the BeatBullying charity to tackle cyber-bullying.
As the only British representative on a panel made up of US and Canadian academics, Professor Rivers found the differences between how the two countries deal with bullying striking: "There is lots of coverage around bullying but are we measuring the same thing? It would help to have a consistent baseline definition which would underpin work to tackle cyber-bullying and develop guidance for schools. Schools need guidance on what bullying is and is not, how to measure it, record it, and build interventions around knowledge of their own schools' circumstances. We can learn a great deal from the approach taken in the US to reach a consensus and measure behaviour systematically."
However, there are other difficulties around providing a definition of bullying as Professor Rivers explains, "Bullying is a very subjective experience and the definition often describes the behaviour of the perpetrator whereas the measurement is often from the perspective of the victim. How we operationalise our understanding of bullying and apply it in school or work-based contexts differs".
Professor Rivers' involvement in this important work will continue as the panel will meet regularly to refine this definition.
The agreed US Definition of Bullying Among Youths:
Bullying is any unwanted aggressive behaviour(s) by another youth or group of youths who are not siblings or current dating partners that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated. Bullying may inflict harm or distress on the targeted youth including physical, psychological, social, or educational harm.
From: http://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/news-items/ne_351985
Having worked at Kingston University...
Having worked at Kingston University I experienced racism and people got
away with it. I was told when I got the job by the team leader that
"there are many other jobs out there" after she offered to take me out
for an introductory tea and in hindsight she was doing me a favour a
telling me how it is. I was one of a number of applicants who applied
and been offered the job there was departmental grooming of new
applicants into particular work areas and I was the last and on weeks
without work and ended up sharing a workload. A colleague who joined at
the same time as me complained about departmental behaviours and
etiquette. The international department is actually the British
Government department how offices are related to based on countries and
associations. I worked for about a year and went through disciplinary
procedures without a union rep as I was naïve believing that reason and
fact coming first their was no basis to the charges from the department.
There was no basis for on Institutional racism in UK universities?
Anonymous
Anonymous
January 12, 2014
Bullying makes life miserable for academics: Study
Bullying isn’t restricted to youngsters. A study shows that it is a trend that can make life miserable for academics too.
Bullying can happen anywhere, to anyone, and a Rutgers-Camden nursing scholar has shed light on how it is becoming increasingly common in academia.
“What worries me is the impact that bullying is having on the ability to recruit and retain quality educators,” says Janice Beitz, a professor at the Rutgers School of Nursing-Camden. “It has become a disturbing trend.”
Beitz is the co-author of “Social Bullying in Nursing Academia”, an article published in the September/October 2013 edition of Nurse Educator that draws upon interviews of 16 nursing professors who were the victims of social bullying in an academic nursing workplace. “We don’t know how widespread this is, but it exists,” says Beitz, who said she too was bullied in her career.
“Not many people look at bullying in the academic environment. We wanted to raise awareness of it.” In the study, Beitz notes that among the most common cases of bullying, academic administrators are targeting faculty, but in some cases, faculty are bullying other faculty members or their administrative superiors, reports Science Daily.
“The bully can make life miserable for the target,” she explained. “That’s because in an administrative role, a bully has the power to make decisions about the target. Part of it is the unique nature of higher education.”
“The tenure process is different than any other environment. Administrators in academia have power over colleagues, and sometimes that power causes them to bully their subordinates,” she said.
From: http://www.canindia.com/2013/12/bullying-makes-life-miserable-for-academics-study/
“What worries me is the impact that bullying is having on the ability to recruit and retain quality educators,” says Janice Beitz, a professor at the Rutgers School of Nursing-Camden. “It has become a disturbing trend.”
Beitz is the co-author of “Social Bullying in Nursing Academia”, an article published in the September/October 2013 edition of Nurse Educator that draws upon interviews of 16 nursing professors who were the victims of social bullying in an academic nursing workplace. “We don’t know how widespread this is, but it exists,” says Beitz, who said she too was bullied in her career.
“Not many people look at bullying in the academic environment. We wanted to raise awareness of it.” In the study, Beitz notes that among the most common cases of bullying, academic administrators are targeting faculty, but in some cases, faculty are bullying other faculty members or their administrative superiors, reports Science Daily.
“The bully can make life miserable for the target,” she explained. “That’s because in an administrative role, a bully has the power to make decisions about the target. Part of it is the unique nature of higher education.”
“The tenure process is different than any other environment. Administrators in academia have power over colleagues, and sometimes that power causes them to bully their subordinates,” she said.
From: http://www.canindia.com/2013/12/bullying-makes-life-miserable-for-academics-study/
January 02, 2014
The dark side of emotional intelligence
Some of the greatest moments in human history were fueled by
emotional intelligence. When Martin Luther King, Jr. presented his
dream, he chose language that would stir the hearts of his audience.
“Instead of honoring this sacred obligation” to liberty, King thundered,
“American has given the Negro people a bad check.” He promised that a
land “sweltering with the heat of oppression” could be “transformed into
an oasis of freedom and justice,” and envisioned a future in which “on
the red hills of Georgia sons of former slaves and the sons of former
slave-owners will be able to sit down together at the table of
brotherhood.”
Delivering this electrifying message required emotional intelligence—the ability to recognize, understand, and manage emotions. Dr. King demonstrated remarkable skill in managing his own emotions and in sparking emotions that moved his audience to action. As his speechwriter Clarence Jones reflected, King delivered “a perfectly balanced outcry of reason and emotion, of anger and hope. His tone of pained indignation matched that note for note.”
Emotional intelligence is important, but the unbridled enthusiasm has obscured a dark side. Recognizing the power of emotions, another one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century spent years studying the emotional effects of his body language. Practicing his hand gestures and analyzing images of his movements allowed him to become “an absolutely spellbinding public speaker,” says the historian Roger Moorhouse—“it was something he worked very hard on.” His name was Adolph Hitler.
Since the 1995 publication of Daniel Goleman’s bestseller, emotional intelligence has been touted by leaders, policymakers, and educators as the solution to a wide range of social problems. If we can teach our children to manage emotions, the argument goes, we’ll have less bullying and more cooperation. If we can cultivate emotional intelligence among leaders and doctors, we’ll have more caring workplaces and more compassionate healthcare. As a result, emotional intelligence is now taught widely in secondary schools, business schools, and medical schools.
When you’re
good at controlling your own emotions,
Emotional intelligence is important, but the unbridled enthusiasm has
obscured a dark side. New evidence shows that when people hone their
emotional skills, they become better at manipulating others. When you’re
good at controlling your own emotions, you can disguise your true
feelings. When you know what others are feeling, you can tug at their
heartstrings and motivate them to act against their own best interests.
Social scientists have begun to document this dark side of emotional intelligence. In emerging research led by University of Cambridge professor Jochen Menges, when a leader gave an inspiring speech filled with emotion, the audience was less likely to scrutinize the message and remembered less of the content. Ironically, audience members were so moved by the speech that they claimed to recall more of it.
The authors call this the awestruck effect, but it might just as easily be described as the dumbstruck effect. One observer reflected that Hitler’s persuasive impact came from his ability to strategically express emotions—he would “tear open his heart”—and these emotions affected his followers to the point that they would “stop thinking critically and just emote.”
"Whenever we wanted to persuade our staff to support a particular project we always tried to break their hearts."
Shining a light on this dark side of emotional intelligence is one mission of a research team led by University College London Professor Martin Kilduff. According to these experts, emotional intelligence helps people disguise one set of emotions while expressing another for personal gain. Emotionally intelligent people “intentionally shape their emotions to fabricate favorable impressions of themselves,” Professor Kilduff’s team writes. “The strategic disguise of one’s own emotions and the manipulation of others’ emotions for strategic ends are behaviors evident not only on Shakespeare’s stage but also in the offices and corridors where power and influence are traded.”
Of course, people aren’t always using emotional intelligence for nefarious ends. More often than not, emotional skills are simply instrumental tools for goal accomplishment. In a study of emotions at the Body Shop, a research team led by Stanford professor Joanne Martin discovered that founder Anita Roddick leveraged emotions to inspire her employees to fundraise for charity. As Roddick explained, “Whenever we wanted to persuade our staff to support a particular project we always tried to break their hearts.” However, Roddick also encouraged employees to be strategic in the timing of their emotion expressions. In one case, after noticing that an employee often “breaks down in tears with frustration,” Roddick said it was acceptable to cry, but “I told her it has to be used. I said, ‘Here, cry at this point in the ... meeting.” When viewing Roddick as an exemplar of an emotionally intelligent leader, it becomes clear that there’s a fine line between motivation and manipulation. Walking that tightrope is no easy task.
In jobs that required extensive attention to emotions, higher emotional intelligence translated into better performance. In jobs that involved fewer emotional demands, the results reversed. In settings where emotions aren’t running high, emotional intelligence may have hidden costs. Recently, psychologists Dana Joseph of the University of Central Florida and Daniel Newman of the University of Illinois comprehensively analyzed every study that has ever examined the link between emotional intelligence and job performance. Across hundreds of studies of thousands of employees in 191 different jobs, emotional intelligence wasn’t consistently linked with better performance. In jobs that required extensive attention to emotions, higher emotional intelligence translated into better performance. Salespeople, real-estate agents, call-center representatives, and counselors all excelled at their jobs when they knew how to read and regulate emotions—they were able to deal more effectively with stressful situations and provide service with a smile.
However, in jobs that involved fewer emotional demands, the results reversed. The more emotionally intelligent employees were, the lower their job performance. For mechanics, scientists, and accountants, emotional intelligence was a liability rather than an asset. Although more research is needed to unpack these results, one promising explanation is that these employees were paying attention to emotions when they should have been focusing on their tasks. If your job is to analyze data or repair cars, it can be quite distracting to read the facial expressions, vocal tones, and body languages of the people around you. In suggesting that emotional intelligence is critical in the workplace, perhaps we’ve put the cart before the horse.
Instead of assuming that emotional intelligence is always useful, we need to think more carefully about where and when it matters. In a recent study at a healthcare company, I asked employees to complete a test about managing and regulating emotions, and then asked managers to evaluate how much time employees spent helping their colleagues and customers. There was no relationship whatsoever between emotional intelligence and helping: Helping is driven by our motivations and values, not by our abilities to understand and manage emotions. However, emotional intelligence was consequential when examining a different behavior: challenging the status quo by speaking up with ideas and suggestions for improvement.
Emotionally intelligent employees spoke up more often and more effectively. When colleagues were treated unjustly, they felt the righteous indignation to speak up, but were able to keep their anger in check and reason with their colleagues. When they went out on a limb to advocate for gender equity, emotional intelligence helped them keep their fear at bay. When they brought ideas for innovation to senior leaders, their ability to express enthusiasm helped them avoid threatening leaders. On a much smaller scale, they were able to follow Martin Luther King Jr.’s lead in rocking the boat while keeping it steady.
More than two decades have passed since psychologists Peter Salovey at Yale and John Mayer at the University of New Hampshire introduced the concept of emotional intelligence in 1990. Why has it taken us so long to develop a more nuanced view? After Daniel Goleman popularized the idea in 1995, many researchers—perhaps awestruck themselves by enthusiasm for the concept of emotional intelligence—proceeded to conduct studies that were fatally flawed. As University of Lausanne Professor John Antonakis observed, “practice and voodoo science is running way ahead of rigorous research.”
One of the most persistent problems was the use of self-report measures, which asked employees to rate their own emotional abilities on items like “I can tell how people are feeling even if they never tell me” and “I am generally very good at calming someone down when he or she is upset.” Abilities cannot be accurately measured with self-reports. As emotion experts Sigal Barsade of Wharton and Donald Gibson of Fairfield University lament, “One might compare this approach to assessing mathematical skills by asking respondents, ‘How good are you at solving algebraic equations?’ rather than asking the person to actually solve an algebraic equation.”
Thanks to more rigorous research methods, there is growing recognition that emotional intelligence—like any skill—can be used for good or evil. So if we’re going to teach emotional intelligence in schools and develop it at work, we need to consider the values that go along with it and where it’s actually useful. As Professor Kilduff and colleagues put it, it is high time that emotional intelligence is “pried away from its association with desirable moral qualities.”
From: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/the-dark-side-of-emotional-intelligence/282720/
Delivering this electrifying message required emotional intelligence—the ability to recognize, understand, and manage emotions. Dr. King demonstrated remarkable skill in managing his own emotions and in sparking emotions that moved his audience to action. As his speechwriter Clarence Jones reflected, King delivered “a perfectly balanced outcry of reason and emotion, of anger and hope. His tone of pained indignation matched that note for note.”
Emotional intelligence is important, but the unbridled enthusiasm has obscured a dark side. Recognizing the power of emotions, another one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century spent years studying the emotional effects of his body language. Practicing his hand gestures and analyzing images of his movements allowed him to become “an absolutely spellbinding public speaker,” says the historian Roger Moorhouse—“it was something he worked very hard on.” His name was Adolph Hitler.
Since the 1995 publication of Daniel Goleman’s bestseller, emotional intelligence has been touted by leaders, policymakers, and educators as the solution to a wide range of social problems. If we can teach our children to manage emotions, the argument goes, we’ll have less bullying and more cooperation. If we can cultivate emotional intelligence among leaders and doctors, we’ll have more caring workplaces and more compassionate healthcare. As a result, emotional intelligence is now taught widely in secondary schools, business schools, and medical schools.
When you’re
good at controlling your own emotions,
you can disguise your true
feelings.
Emotional intelligence is important, but the unbridled enthusiasm has
obscured a dark side. New evidence shows that when people hone their
emotional skills, they become better at manipulating others. When you’re
good at controlling your own emotions, you can disguise your true
feelings. When you know what others are feeling, you can tug at their
heartstrings and motivate them to act against their own best interests.Social scientists have begun to document this dark side of emotional intelligence. In emerging research led by University of Cambridge professor Jochen Menges, when a leader gave an inspiring speech filled with emotion, the audience was less likely to scrutinize the message and remembered less of the content. Ironically, audience members were so moved by the speech that they claimed to recall more of it.
The authors call this the awestruck effect, but it might just as easily be described as the dumbstruck effect. One observer reflected that Hitler’s persuasive impact came from his ability to strategically express emotions—he would “tear open his heart”—and these emotions affected his followers to the point that they would “stop thinking critically and just emote.”
"Whenever we wanted to persuade our staff to support a particular project we always tried to break their hearts."
The employees who engaged in the most harmful behaviors were Machiavellians with high emotional intelligence.
Leaders who master emotions can rob us of our capacities to reason. If their values are out of step with our own, the results can be devastating. New evidence suggests that when people have self-serving motives, emotional intelligence becomes a weapon for manipulating others. In a study led by the University of Toronto psychologist Stéphane Côté, university employees filled out a survey about their Machiavellian tendencies, and took a test measuring their knowledge about effective strategies for managing emotions. Then, Cote’s team assessed how often the employees deliberately undermined their colleagues. The employees who engaged in the most harmful behaviors were Machiavellians with high emotional intelligence. They used their emotional skills to demean and embarrass their peers for personal gain. In one computer company studied by Tel-Aviv University professor Gideon Kunda, a manager admitted to telling a colleague “how excited we all are with what he is doing,” but at the same time, “distancing my organization from the project,” so “when it blows up,” the company’s founder would blame the colleague.Shining a light on this dark side of emotional intelligence is one mission of a research team led by University College London Professor Martin Kilduff. According to these experts, emotional intelligence helps people disguise one set of emotions while expressing another for personal gain. Emotionally intelligent people “intentionally shape their emotions to fabricate favorable impressions of themselves,” Professor Kilduff’s team writes. “The strategic disguise of one’s own emotions and the manipulation of others’ emotions for strategic ends are behaviors evident not only on Shakespeare’s stage but also in the offices and corridors where power and influence are traded.”
Of course, people aren’t always using emotional intelligence for nefarious ends. More often than not, emotional skills are simply instrumental tools for goal accomplishment. In a study of emotions at the Body Shop, a research team led by Stanford professor Joanne Martin discovered that founder Anita Roddick leveraged emotions to inspire her employees to fundraise for charity. As Roddick explained, “Whenever we wanted to persuade our staff to support a particular project we always tried to break their hearts.” However, Roddick also encouraged employees to be strategic in the timing of their emotion expressions. In one case, after noticing that an employee often “breaks down in tears with frustration,” Roddick said it was acceptable to cry, but “I told her it has to be used. I said, ‘Here, cry at this point in the ... meeting.” When viewing Roddick as an exemplar of an emotionally intelligent leader, it becomes clear that there’s a fine line between motivation and manipulation. Walking that tightrope is no easy task.
In jobs that required extensive attention to emotions, higher emotional intelligence translated into better performance. In jobs that involved fewer emotional demands, the results reversed. In settings where emotions aren’t running high, emotional intelligence may have hidden costs. Recently, psychologists Dana Joseph of the University of Central Florida and Daniel Newman of the University of Illinois comprehensively analyzed every study that has ever examined the link between emotional intelligence and job performance. Across hundreds of studies of thousands of employees in 191 different jobs, emotional intelligence wasn’t consistently linked with better performance. In jobs that required extensive attention to emotions, higher emotional intelligence translated into better performance. Salespeople, real-estate agents, call-center representatives, and counselors all excelled at their jobs when they knew how to read and regulate emotions—they were able to deal more effectively with stressful situations and provide service with a smile.
However, in jobs that involved fewer emotional demands, the results reversed. The more emotionally intelligent employees were, the lower their job performance. For mechanics, scientists, and accountants, emotional intelligence was a liability rather than an asset. Although more research is needed to unpack these results, one promising explanation is that these employees were paying attention to emotions when they should have been focusing on their tasks. If your job is to analyze data or repair cars, it can be quite distracting to read the facial expressions, vocal tones, and body languages of the people around you. In suggesting that emotional intelligence is critical in the workplace, perhaps we’ve put the cart before the horse.
Instead of assuming that emotional intelligence is always useful, we need to think more carefully about where and when it matters. In a recent study at a healthcare company, I asked employees to complete a test about managing and regulating emotions, and then asked managers to evaluate how much time employees spent helping their colleagues and customers. There was no relationship whatsoever between emotional intelligence and helping: Helping is driven by our motivations and values, not by our abilities to understand and manage emotions. However, emotional intelligence was consequential when examining a different behavior: challenging the status quo by speaking up with ideas and suggestions for improvement.
Emotionally intelligent employees spoke up more often and more effectively. When colleagues were treated unjustly, they felt the righteous indignation to speak up, but were able to keep their anger in check and reason with their colleagues. When they went out on a limb to advocate for gender equity, emotional intelligence helped them keep their fear at bay. When they brought ideas for innovation to senior leaders, their ability to express enthusiasm helped them avoid threatening leaders. On a much smaller scale, they were able to follow Martin Luther King Jr.’s lead in rocking the boat while keeping it steady.
More than two decades have passed since psychologists Peter Salovey at Yale and John Mayer at the University of New Hampshire introduced the concept of emotional intelligence in 1990. Why has it taken us so long to develop a more nuanced view? After Daniel Goleman popularized the idea in 1995, many researchers—perhaps awestruck themselves by enthusiasm for the concept of emotional intelligence—proceeded to conduct studies that were fatally flawed. As University of Lausanne Professor John Antonakis observed, “practice and voodoo science is running way ahead of rigorous research.”
One of the most persistent problems was the use of self-report measures, which asked employees to rate their own emotional abilities on items like “I can tell how people are feeling even if they never tell me” and “I am generally very good at calming someone down when he or she is upset.” Abilities cannot be accurately measured with self-reports. As emotion experts Sigal Barsade of Wharton and Donald Gibson of Fairfield University lament, “One might compare this approach to assessing mathematical skills by asking respondents, ‘How good are you at solving algebraic equations?’ rather than asking the person to actually solve an algebraic equation.”
Thanks to more rigorous research methods, there is growing recognition that emotional intelligence—like any skill—can be used for good or evil. So if we’re going to teach emotional intelligence in schools and develop it at work, we need to consider the values that go along with it and where it’s actually useful. As Professor Kilduff and colleagues put it, it is high time that emotional intelligence is “pried away from its association with desirable moral qualities.”
From: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/the-dark-side-of-emotional-intelligence/282720/
December 21, 2013
Bullying in Academia More Prevalent Than Thought
"What worries me is the impact that bullying is having on the ability
to recruit and retain quality educators," says Janice Beitz, a
professor at the Rutgers School of Nursing-Camden. "It has become a
disturbing trend."
Beitz is a co-author of "Social Bullying in Nursing Academia," an article published in the September/October 2013 edition of Nurse Educator that draws upon interviews conducted with 16 nursing professors who were the victims of social bullying in an academic nursing workplace. Beitz says that the participants described in detail instances in which they were slandered, isolated, physically threatened, lied to, or given unrealistic workloads, among various other bullying tactics.
The participants in the study were primarily non-tenured female faculty teaching in baccalaureate programs throughout the Unites States.
"We don't know how widespread this is, but it exists," says Beitz, who says she was bullied in her career. "Not many people look at bullying in the academic environment. We wanted to raise awareness of it."
In the study, Beitz notes that in the most common cases of bullying, academic administrators are targeting faculty, but in some cases, faculty are bullying other faculty members or their administrative superiors.
Bullies may be threatened by a fellow academic's qualifications and scholarship, or victims may be targeted because they are perceived as weak, Beitz says.
"The bully can make life miserable for the target," she explains. "That's because in an administrative role, a bully has the power to make decisions about the target. Part of it is the unique nature of higher education. The tenure process is different than any other environment. Administrators in academia have power over colleagues, and sometimes that power causes them to bully their subordinates."
Beitz says bullying victims will often blame themselves for the actions of a colleague and she says sometimes the only thing a victim can do is leave the environment altogether, which can dissuade nurses from pursuing careers as educators.
"Institutions need to have good faculty who are experienced clinicians and researchers. That doesn't happen in a bad bullying environment," she says. "If I hadn't had support from fellow faculty, I would have left education. I wouldn't have wanted that to happen. I've enjoyed my career. I feel like I've had an impact on a lot of wonderful graduates who have gone on to have great careers. People want to feel valued. That's why it's important to serve the people you work with and employ a collegial, positive environment."
Beitz is now working on a follow-up study on resilience and how victims are surviving when bullied. Additionally, since her bullying study does address the prevalence of bullying in nursing academia, Beitz hopes to cast a wider net and perform a quantitative study on the issue nationwide. Beitz's co-authors on "Social Bullying in Academia" were La Salle University nursing professors Earl Goldberg, Ciara Levine, and Diane Wieland.
From: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131219162948.htm
Beitz is a co-author of "Social Bullying in Nursing Academia," an article published in the September/October 2013 edition of Nurse Educator that draws upon interviews conducted with 16 nursing professors who were the victims of social bullying in an academic nursing workplace. Beitz says that the participants described in detail instances in which they were slandered, isolated, physically threatened, lied to, or given unrealistic workloads, among various other bullying tactics.
The participants in the study were primarily non-tenured female faculty teaching in baccalaureate programs throughout the Unites States.
"We don't know how widespread this is, but it exists," says Beitz, who says she was bullied in her career. "Not many people look at bullying in the academic environment. We wanted to raise awareness of it."
In the study, Beitz notes that in the most common cases of bullying, academic administrators are targeting faculty, but in some cases, faculty are bullying other faculty members or their administrative superiors.
Bullies may be threatened by a fellow academic's qualifications and scholarship, or victims may be targeted because they are perceived as weak, Beitz says.
"The bully can make life miserable for the target," she explains. "That's because in an administrative role, a bully has the power to make decisions about the target. Part of it is the unique nature of higher education. The tenure process is different than any other environment. Administrators in academia have power over colleagues, and sometimes that power causes them to bully their subordinates."
Beitz says bullying victims will often blame themselves for the actions of a colleague and she says sometimes the only thing a victim can do is leave the environment altogether, which can dissuade nurses from pursuing careers as educators.
"Institutions need to have good faculty who are experienced clinicians and researchers. That doesn't happen in a bad bullying environment," she says. "If I hadn't had support from fellow faculty, I would have left education. I wouldn't have wanted that to happen. I've enjoyed my career. I feel like I've had an impact on a lot of wonderful graduates who have gone on to have great careers. People want to feel valued. That's why it's important to serve the people you work with and employ a collegial, positive environment."
Beitz is now working on a follow-up study on resilience and how victims are surviving when bullied. Additionally, since her bullying study does address the prevalence of bullying in nursing academia, Beitz hopes to cast a wider net and perform a quantitative study on the issue nationwide. Beitz's co-authors on "Social Bullying in Academia" were La Salle University nursing professors Earl Goldberg, Ciara Levine, and Diane Wieland.
From: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131219162948.htm
December 19, 2013
Imperial College...
Putting any lack of investment in staff development, strategies that
exist to promote cronyism, incompetence, favoritism, and inequality, and
to disguise management failures, Imperial College is a place where
internal grievance procedures are used selectively by managers - against
staff, with most senior managers untouchable and no accountability or
transparency in any decision making process. If any complaints ever
reach the surface those are ignored and the staff are victimised and
penalised in such a way so that they serve as a lesson for others. Fear
prevails among a silent majority, over-managed or under-managed
according to senior staff needs. The working environment is toxic.
Anonymous
Anonymous
December 15, 2013
Why the Gifted Are at Heightened Risk
...A review of the literature by Zapf and Einarsen (2005) suggests that individuals describing themselves “as more achievement-oriented and as more conscientious than their colleagues” (p. 253) are more often mobbing targets. The (D.) perfectionism that is a virtue of the highly gifted individual is (A.) misunderstood by others, whereas for the gifted individual this is but an expression of his or her (D.) estheticism in the same way that a perfect diamond’s refraction of light is also beautiful. Colleagues will know that their work does not stack up by comparison, and they will need no one to tell them so. The gifted individual’s perfectionism and estheticism are seen as a threat, even if the gifted individual does not speak about them and does not offer criticism of others. A highly gifted adult cannot obscure his or her presence in such a milieu even through innocuous behavior. Such a presence will become and remain a recognized social fact because gossip, malicious and otherwise, will establish it as such. This malice will enforce the gifted adult’s social isolation, probably also intensifying his or her search for the meaning of that social isolation. Highly gifted adults’ (A.) difference from others, exacerbated by (A.) others’ misunderstanding of this difference, offers less capable colleagues the opportunity to establish by rumor and innuendo other socially recognized “facts,” to the detriment of the gifted person, whether those “facts” are actually true or not.
It is unhappily the case that there are not always enough places in superlative organizations to house the number of highly talented and gifted individuals who merit such positions. At institutions less than first-rate, therefore, one characteristically finds a small number of highly talented individuals who merit placement at a truly first-rate institution, surrounded by a rather larger number of less talented individuals who know that they could never reasonably aspire to such a position. The latter will typically compensate for their sense of inferiority by seeking ego-satisfaction through the acquisition of institutional power and prerogative. This power they will then tend to employ to make others’ lives hell, often targeting highly talented colleagues whose greater abilities evoke their own deep-seated insecurity.
Einarsen’s (1999) research on “predatory mobbing” (i.e., cases where the victim has not acted in any provocative manner that might justify the behavior of the predator) gives examples of the foregoing destructive cycle. Stucke’s (2002, cited in Zapf & Einarsen, 2005, p. 251) study establishes empirically that “active mobbing behavior [is] highest for a group high in narcissism but low in self-esteem stability, [as this group’s] individuals had to stabilize their high but unstable selfesteem by treating other individuals negatively.” In other words, inflated but weak egos need to beat down genuine quality in others. This is a “textbook description” not only of the organizational culture of the institution where I worked but indeed of the cultural syndrome of the whole broader social milieu of which the institution is characteristic. Zapf and Einarsen (2005) explain how such a dynamic develops on the microsocial level:
This group of victims was certainly [D.] not among the least efficient employees in the organization. Their problem was that they clashed with the norms of the work group to which they belonged. It is likely that in this case, the victims’ [B.] conscientiousness went against a group culture characterized by rigidity and low tolerance for diversity. These victims were probably perceived as constant annoyances or even threats to the work group to which they belonged. As a consequence, the group may have started to harass these individuals, either to enforce conformity or to get rid of the person. (p. 254; emphasis added)...
From: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/Kotleras-mobbing2011.pdf
November 23, 2013
Workplace Bullying in Canadian Graduate Psychology Programs: Student Perspectives of Student–Supervisor Relationships
From: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2013-36056-001/
November 09, 2013
Otago University bullying alleged
The director of the University of Otago's marketing and
communications division has been accused of bullying and being
responsible for a ''toxic'' environment in the division.
The accusations against Virginia Nicholls were made at an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) case in Dunedin yesterday by former head of marketing services Kerry Kirkland, who claims she was unjustifiably dismissed and is seeking more than $270,000 in compensation from the university.
The accusations were supported by two other former staff members - including Dr Kirkland's predecessor - who agreed Ms Nicholls bullied staff and created an unhealthy environment in the division.
Dr Kirkland said the university failed to adequately address problems in the division.
''The work environment was toxic and the university had knowledge of the problems but refused to acknowledge or remedy this which is what made the working relationship untenable,'' she said in a statement provided to the authority.
After Dr Kirkland took the job in October 2011, it soon became apparent Ms Nicholls' management style was causing problems, Dr Kirkland said.
''I found the atmosphere in the department to be oppressive and staff members were distraught about the situation with Ms Nicholls and how they had been treated by her.''
Her relationship with Ms Nicholls got to the point where she went on stress leave in February this year after a doctor provided a medical certificate saying her work environment was harmful to her health.
The university responded on March 20 with a letter saying Dr Kirkland could not return to work unless she had a medical certificate saying she had ''recovered'' enough to return to work in the ''existing environment''.
She was later sent a letter dismissing her from her position on May 16 on the grounds of ''medical incapacity''.
Dr Kirkland argued the condition requiring her to get a medical certificate before returning to work was illegal and impossible to fulfil.
She said her relationship with Ms Nicholls deteriorated after allegations made by other staff members that she had been ''rude'' in meetings were repeatedly brought up by Ms Nicholls.
She felt the allegations were unfounded and was disappointed they were not investigated by the university thoroughly enough for either her name to be cleared or for her to be able to learn from her behaviour.
Under cross-examination of Dr Kirkland, counsel for the university Barry Dorking asked if comments made by her during the meeting with one of the staff members could be perceived as being ''rude''. Dr Kirkland replied saying ''clearly'', but said she was merely doing her job.
After being questioned by ERA member David Appleton about the ''extraordinary amount'' of compensation she was seeking, Dr Kirkland said she was still having problems sleeping. Her experience had resulted in a loss of confidence, damage to her reputation and she was yet to find a full-time permanent job.
Dr Kirkland's predecessor, Ruth Mackenzie-White, told the authority she left the university because of her relationship with Ms Nicholls.
''I regularly felt bullied by Ms Nicholls and I was frequently in tears in my one-on-one meetings with her due to the way she spoke to me.''
Former staff member Kate Kidson, who left the division this year, also backed Dr Kirkland, saying in a statement to the ERA she ''witnessed'' Ms Nicholls bullying Dr Kirkland. She also talked about the unhealthy culture in the division.
''In my opinion, there was a culture of fear at the department of marketing services.'' She was present at one of the meetings where Dr Kirkland was accused of being ''rude'' and did not believe the accusation was correct.
Lawyer David Sim gave evidence on a report he wrote for the university on Ms Nicholls' management style after the university received a letter of complaint about Ms Nicholls from the Tertiary Education Union.
Under cross-examination from counsel for Dr Kirkland, Len Andersen, Mr Sim accepted there were problems in the division, but stood by comments that none of the about 70 allegations he uncovered ''could reasonably be described as bullying'' - a comment he made in a letter to the court.
Mr Appleton said he did not ''understand'' how some of the allegations made by Dr Kirkland to Mr Sim could not be described as accusations of bullying.
Mr Sim replied to his questions saying, ''bullying is an easy word to use, but whether there is any substance [to claims of bullying] is another question''.
University chief operating officer John Patrick said following Mr Sim's report, the university had taken actions to improve the situation in the division.
He had met division staff in February and told them they could raise any concerns over Ms Nicholls' behaviour, for a period until June 30, directly with him.
Ms Nicholls was also asked to participate in a leadership course.
Asked if the environment had improved since, he said, ''Yes, I think [it has] improved significantly.''
He mentioned, based on his experience, that Dr Kirkland could be ''abrupt'' and recalled his first meeting with her, saying she told him: ''They tell me you can be ... a difficult person to deal with.''
He also recounted a meeting he had with Dr Kirkland in February at which he told her the university was not going to discipline her over accusations she had been rude in meetings with other staff.
At the meeting, he offered for the university to investigate the claims of rudeness made against Dr Kirkland.
Mr Appleton said there was confusion over whether the investigation offered would involve disciplinary action against Dr Kirkland.
Mr Patrick replied saying the investigation would not have been part of any disciplinary action.
The case continues.
From: http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/279901/varsity-bullying-alleged
Also: http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/280095/bullying-claims-rejected
The accusations against Virginia Nicholls were made at an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) case in Dunedin yesterday by former head of marketing services Kerry Kirkland, who claims she was unjustifiably dismissed and is seeking more than $270,000 in compensation from the university.
The accusations were supported by two other former staff members - including Dr Kirkland's predecessor - who agreed Ms Nicholls bullied staff and created an unhealthy environment in the division.
Dr Kirkland said the university failed to adequately address problems in the division.
''The work environment was toxic and the university had knowledge of the problems but refused to acknowledge or remedy this which is what made the working relationship untenable,'' she said in a statement provided to the authority.
After Dr Kirkland took the job in October 2011, it soon became apparent Ms Nicholls' management style was causing problems, Dr Kirkland said.
''I found the atmosphere in the department to be oppressive and staff members were distraught about the situation with Ms Nicholls and how they had been treated by her.''
Her relationship with Ms Nicholls got to the point where she went on stress leave in February this year after a doctor provided a medical certificate saying her work environment was harmful to her health.
The university responded on March 20 with a letter saying Dr Kirkland could not return to work unless she had a medical certificate saying she had ''recovered'' enough to return to work in the ''existing environment''.
She was later sent a letter dismissing her from her position on May 16 on the grounds of ''medical incapacity''.
Dr Kirkland argued the condition requiring her to get a medical certificate before returning to work was illegal and impossible to fulfil.
She said her relationship with Ms Nicholls deteriorated after allegations made by other staff members that she had been ''rude'' in meetings were repeatedly brought up by Ms Nicholls.
She felt the allegations were unfounded and was disappointed they were not investigated by the university thoroughly enough for either her name to be cleared or for her to be able to learn from her behaviour.
Under cross-examination of Dr Kirkland, counsel for the university Barry Dorking asked if comments made by her during the meeting with one of the staff members could be perceived as being ''rude''. Dr Kirkland replied saying ''clearly'', but said she was merely doing her job.
After being questioned by ERA member David Appleton about the ''extraordinary amount'' of compensation she was seeking, Dr Kirkland said she was still having problems sleeping. Her experience had resulted in a loss of confidence, damage to her reputation and she was yet to find a full-time permanent job.
Dr Kirkland's predecessor, Ruth Mackenzie-White, told the authority she left the university because of her relationship with Ms Nicholls.
''I regularly felt bullied by Ms Nicholls and I was frequently in tears in my one-on-one meetings with her due to the way she spoke to me.''
Former staff member Kate Kidson, who left the division this year, also backed Dr Kirkland, saying in a statement to the ERA she ''witnessed'' Ms Nicholls bullying Dr Kirkland. She also talked about the unhealthy culture in the division.
''In my opinion, there was a culture of fear at the department of marketing services.'' She was present at one of the meetings where Dr Kirkland was accused of being ''rude'' and did not believe the accusation was correct.
Lawyer David Sim gave evidence on a report he wrote for the university on Ms Nicholls' management style after the university received a letter of complaint about Ms Nicholls from the Tertiary Education Union.
Under cross-examination from counsel for Dr Kirkland, Len Andersen, Mr Sim accepted there were problems in the division, but stood by comments that none of the about 70 allegations he uncovered ''could reasonably be described as bullying'' - a comment he made in a letter to the court.
Mr Appleton said he did not ''understand'' how some of the allegations made by Dr Kirkland to Mr Sim could not be described as accusations of bullying.
Mr Sim replied to his questions saying, ''bullying is an easy word to use, but whether there is any substance [to claims of bullying] is another question''.
University chief operating officer John Patrick said following Mr Sim's report, the university had taken actions to improve the situation in the division.
He had met division staff in February and told them they could raise any concerns over Ms Nicholls' behaviour, for a period until June 30, directly with him.
Ms Nicholls was also asked to participate in a leadership course.
Asked if the environment had improved since, he said, ''Yes, I think [it has] improved significantly.''
He mentioned, based on his experience, that Dr Kirkland could be ''abrupt'' and recalled his first meeting with her, saying she told him: ''They tell me you can be ... a difficult person to deal with.''
He also recounted a meeting he had with Dr Kirkland in February at which he told her the university was not going to discipline her over accusations she had been rude in meetings with other staff.
At the meeting, he offered for the university to investigate the claims of rudeness made against Dr Kirkland.
Mr Appleton said there was confusion over whether the investigation offered would involve disciplinary action against Dr Kirkland.
Mr Patrick replied saying the investigation would not have been part of any disciplinary action.
The case continues.
From: http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/279901/varsity-bullying-alleged
Also: http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/280095/bullying-claims-rejected
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)