Auckland University of Technology survey uncovers concerning law school workplace; higher staff bullying rates

 

An internal survey at the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) law school has revealed issues with its work culture, with one staffer saying they believed there would be “serious consequences” for speaking up against senior leadership.

And one senior professor has clapped back at staff for leaking results of the survey after no action was allegedly taken to address the unsatisfactory results, saying they should leave if they are unhappy.

A spokesperson from AUT said they did not wish to comment on the emails but were concerned about the results of the survey.

Twenty of the 26 law staff responded to AUT’s “Your Voice” survey for 2024, which found the law school had “lower favourable ratings than the faculty average across most factors”, as described by the business, economics and law faculty.

Results of the recent survey leaked to the Herald showed;

• 20% have personally experienced discrimination at work in the past six months

• 35% have personally experienced bullying or harassment at work in the past six months

• 30% feel comfortable reporting inappropriate behaviour

• 5% believe AUT would intervene if someone was not delivering in their role

In a series of emails between law staff following the results, acting dean Mike French said he was not sure there was much to be gained by the school discussing the staff responses and was “not very clear” on how best to address or deal with reports of bullying.

In response, results of the survey were leaked by staff.

After learning the results of the survey had been leaked, AUT professor of law Paul Myburgh sent an email to all law school staff with the subject line, “the coward who did this should be utterly ashamed of themselves”.

“Civilised human beings wash their dirty linen indoors. If you’re that unhappy, please do us all a favour and leave. We’ll hold the door open for you so that it doesn’t hit your arse on the way out,” the email read.

When Myburgh’s email was also leaked and he received an email from a member of the public saying he was “famous for all the wrong reasons”, Myburgh sent another email to staff, saying they were “Pathetic. Puerile. Pusillanimous”.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-university-of-technology-survey-uncovers-concerning-law-school-workplace-higher-staff-bullying-rates/G27CB6BR3JGRPI2VX6DP4I4UEI/

Academic bullying is hidden in plain sight

 

"...And, above all, there is no mention of emails, emails, emails: hundreds, thousands of them, full of unnecessary or impossible jobs – emails telling you off for not doing said unnecessary or impossible jobs – emails undermining you in front of others – emails magnifying minor failures – or emails damning with faint or ambivalent praise. Those emails sent on Monday mornings, to upset you at the start of the week – emails sent on Friday afternoons, so you dwell on them all weekend. Emails, emails, emails incessantly scything to and fro above you, like a razor-sharp pendulum, looming closer and closer…

In the tale by Edgar Allan Poe that famously depicts such a torture device (a scything pendulum, that is, not email), the reader hardly glimpses the torturers themselves. For all but the opening of the story, the Holy Inquisitors remain offstage, operating the torture machinery from afar. This is what technology of many kinds – from inquisitorial pendulums to institutional email to X/Twitter to academic acronyms – facilitates: for torture to be inflicted remotely, for the torturers to remain invisible.

Of course, the beauty of “cyber-bullying” and “trolling” is that the torturers can disown their own torture devices: It wasn’t me, guv’nor. I didn’t do nothing. Perhaps it wasn’t anyone. Perhaps it was the victim themselves crying “Wolf!” Remote bullying can efface itself, X accounts can be anonymised, passive-aggressive emails reinterpreted (Of course I didn’t mean that) – to the extent that the victims themselves come to be suspected of paranoia: There’s no one there, there’s nothing wrong, it’s all in your head, stop imagining things, stop attacking yourself.

At worst, the people expressing such concerns onstage turn out to be the very same torturers who are invisibly operating the technology behind the scenes: What a shame, you need help, don’t worry, we’ll take care of you. Very, very good care.

That’s because one of the paradoxical signs of bullying, in my limited experience, is kindness. Beware academic mentors, people who wear their pastoral skills on their sleeves: to care for someone, to take them under your wing, is to exercise a dangerous power. If nothing else, it imposes a debt of gratitude upon them. It also has the added benefit of muddying the waters when it comes to complaints, tribunals, solicitors. The bully can point to moments of kindness (carefully recorded, of course) that seem to undermine the complainant’s claims: But look how nice I was on this and that occasion.

This sort of weaponised kindness can be deployed remotely, too. One of the times I came closest to losing my mind, under the shadow of my professorial bully, was when a mature student told me, as if spontaneously, that my boss cared for me, that they were concerned about my mental well-being, that they really liked me and wished I liked them back. I went away thinking: Oh, perhaps I’ve been unfair to them. Perhaps I was wrong all along. Perhaps it’s all been in my head..."

From: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/depth/academic-bullying-hidden-plain-sight

When a Department Self-Destructs. Battles over money. Allegations of racism. A chair ousted.

 

...Now all of that ugliness is being aired by Kunin himself. He’s writing a book about what happened and publishing installments — 23 as of this writing — on Substack. The newsletter, named after the Pixies song “Weird at My School,” pokes fun at the literary world inhabited by its author. Except Kunin’s characters aren’t fictional. He describes what his colleagues said and how they acted and quotes from their many emails to depict a department run aground by dysfunction. The story he tells is one of intolerance, vendetta, ego, and timidity. People who work in places like Pomona’s English department “do not say what they think,” Kunin writes. “Inevitably, in this working environment, they forget how to think for themselves.”

Polemics abound about self-censorship in academe. What makes Kunin’s project distinct is his willingness to root around in the dirt of his department, unearthing petty and bizarre disputes and holding them up to the light. He hopes to illustrate a broader phenomenon: that academic freedom is too easily sacrificed at the altar of agreeableness. That allegations of racism can be used to muzzle discourse. That when colleagues avoid conflict at all cost, what’s acceptable to think and say constricts until there’s little space left for anything unorthodox.

Even before he published his newsletter, most of Kunin’s colleagues had stopped speaking to him, at least in the way that colleagues typically do. Laying bare your coworkers’ absurdities risks torpedoing whatever’s left of those relationships. So why do it? What is there to be gained, other than glares in the faculty lounge?

...He says no one took minutes at department meetings, so there was no record of what decisions were made and people sometimes forgot. The decisions themselves were determined in a haphazard way — sometimes by vote, sometimes not, and often by, as he writes, “weak consensus.”

...As chair he’d been embroiled in so much pointless conflict, but this one, over a course he wanted to teach, was something he actually cared about. He told Gray he was tired of being bullied and wanted to display intellectual bravery. He thought that was important, particularly at Pomona, where a Gallup poll had found that 63 percent of surveyed professors agreed that the campus climate prevented people from saying things they believed because others might find them offensive. “The result of self-censorship is academic dishonesty,” Kunin would write in a lengthy statement to the dean, “and the only cure for self-censorship is not to do it.”...

From: https://www.chronicle.com/article/when-a-department-self-destructs

Just four in 10 black early career scholars would report bullying

 “Insidious” unconscious bias in universities is a greater challenge to the career prospects of black academics than the need for more immediate income, according to a new study.

Workplace environments meant that fewer than four in 10 (38 per cent) of black early career academics say they would feel comfortable reporting bullying or harassment, the survey by the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) finds. 

This was having an effect on career paths, with 81 per cent of the nearly 100 academics surveyed agreeing that they faced particular challenges as a black academic – and just 10 per cent disagreeing.

Unconscious bias is identified as a challenge to progression in an academic career, with half of participants (54 per cent) saying it was the most significant factor, followed by lacking a community of people like them (52 per cent). These issues were thought to be more of a hindrance to their careers than the need for immediate income (48 per cent).

Becca Franssen, lead author and partner in education and research at executive search firm GatenbySanderson, told Times Higher Education that the findings were “unsurprising and still worrying”.

Dr Franssen said unconscious bias training – routinely offered to staff by their universities – did not address systems, processes and criteria that are “inherently biased”, and neglects one of the most commonly cited issues in the survey: that black academics feel barred from conversations about progression...

From: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/just-four-10-black-early-career-scholars-would-report-bullying

The biggest threat to an organisation's reputation...

 

A department’s culture...

"...A department’s culture is an unwritten, unspoken, but strongly felt worldview, a system of values and cognitions that determines how things get interpreted, what decisions are made, and what the quality of actions taken will be. This culture is distinct, separate, and bigger than individuals in the department because those who have been around for some time have been conditioned by the culture...”

Sodowsky, G. R. (2008). Getting along with colleagues. In K. D. Hostetler, R. M. Sawyer, & K. W. Prichard (Eds.), The art and politics of college teaching (2nd ed., pp. 171–177). New York: Peter Lang.

Fewer leaders, more leadership

 ...Much of the complaint levelled at university leaders stems from common (and often hyperbolic) assessments of their excessive remuneration; their lack of moral authority, ethical integrity, compassion, empathy, and care for others; their non-consultative crisis-management model of governance; and their appropriation of universities as personal legacy and vanity projects. They are also associated with the normalisation of exploitative and precarious labour practices; an epidemic of staff bullying, harassment, and discrimination (habitually by managers they are seen to protect); and the perpetuation of structural inequalities within universities. As if such accusations were not enough, they are also blamed for indecision and apathy not only in the face of government aggression and policy hostility, but also in defending the value proposition of the university as a public good and in responding to challenges of digital disruption and financial vulnerability. When viewed as absentee landlords, the contribution of university leaders, in respect of substantive leadership, is made further hard to ascertain or confirm.
 
However, if leadership is found wanting within universities, it is not just among those in positions of apex authority. The problem is more diffuse and deep-rooted. Notwithstanding, it has culminated in a blame game and villainisation of university leaders that oversimplifies and fails to redress a systemic failure of leadership within universities; the reasons for which are polymorphous...

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/highereducation/2024/05/23/fewer-leaders-more-leadership/

Shrouded in secrecy: how science is harmed by the bullying and harassment rumour mill

 

"...Academia continues to struggle with bullying and harassment, despite social protest movements such as #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter drawing attention to it. According to Nature’s 2021 global salary and job satisfaction survey, 27% of the 3,200 self-selecting respondents said they had observed or experienced discrimination, bullying or harassment in their present position, up from 21% in 2018. In Nature’s 2022 graduate student survey, 18% said that they had personally experienced bullying, down from 21% in 2019. And in last year’s survey of postdoctoral researchers, 25% reported experiencing discrimination and harassment.

These behaviours create unsafe spaces in academia — particularly for women and minority groups — that reinforce inequalities1, drive researchers out of academia and can even put people at risk of physical harm2.

Because misconduct investigations are usually shrouded in secrecy, colleagues are often left to base their responses on rumours and hearsay, and unsure how to interact with an accused peer.

There are also several good reasons for closed investigations, including various competing interests around privacy and due process, many of them employment-law protections. Furthermore, survivors of harassment might not want their cases publicized, and those accused might want to defend their case without being tried in the court of public opinion first.

“Harassment is actually not an individual issue,” says Anna Bull, who is based in York, UK, and is the director of research at the 1752 Group, a UK organization that studies and advocates against sexual misconduct. “It is a community issue.”

...There are no definitive statistics on either the prevalence or the extent of confirmed findings of harassment and discrimination in academia. But, in a 2018 report that summarized studies on sexual harassment in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields, the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine estimated that more than half of female faculty members and staff have encountered or experienced sexual harassment. In a 2022 survey of more than 4,000 self-selected early- and mid-career researchers in Brazil, 47% of women had experienced harassment at work. Only a small fraction of reported incidents will result in formal disciplinary action. Of those that result in a finding of misconduct, an even smaller number will be made public.

...Total transparency about bullying and harassment cases can also be problematic, because many survivors might not want to disclose what happened to them, says Mark Dean, chief executive of Enmasse, a workplace behaviour-change consultancy company in Melbourne, Australia.

“There’s a reasonable chance that an unwanted announcement will further traumatize an individual,” he says, adding that respecting a survivor’s wishes is fundamental, and should inform any action. The complainant might want to put the matter behind them or they might fear other forms of career-damaging retaliation. Although many colleagues might guess who the complainant is after a suspected harasser leaves, this can be less traumatic than a public announcement, Dean says..."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00986-w

What Makes Narcissists Tick - Understanding Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)

 

...Many, if not most, narcissists get away with bullying, slander, calumny, and abuse (even as prosecutable offenses) their whole lives. How? It's easy:

• make the abuse so outrageous people cannot see why anybody would do such a thing 
• destroy the victim's credibility in advance. 

No one does the things a narcissist does without thinking about the possible consequences. So, they are going to think up ways to avoid those consequences, too.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you want to get away with abusing someone, you first launch a pre-emptive attack on their character, so that nobody will believe them when they soon complain about what you are doing to them…

Everybody knows that when somebody defends himself from accusations with accusations, the crowd always believes the one who accused first and views the defendant as the attacker. This is irrational, because the initial accuser is the attacker and there is no more reason to believe one party than the other.

So, people don't do this in good faith. Indeed, the more preposterous the initial accuser's accusations, the more firmly people believe them! They do this out of self interest, because the return allegations make them look bad for eagerly swallowing the first accuser's preposterous and juicy lies whole. All con artists are thus protected by the pride of those they con.

The narcissist commits moral mayhem by destroying the victim's reputation and credibility, so that nobody will believe her about him. His description of her is projection, a perfect description of himself... Nobody will even listen to her. Thus, the narcissist reduces her to a hapless and helpless state.

Narcissistic bullies in the workplace, especially as administrators in nonprofit institutions, are notorious for doing this. Their total destruction of the victim's life is so willful and wanton that it can sometimes only be viewed as a deliberate attempt to drive him or her to suicide. And all too often it does…

Attention is a value judgment. We pay it only to things we deem worthy of it. So, by treating others as unworthy of any regard, Narcissus is acting as though they are beneath notice, insignificant and infinitely less important than all-important him. He pays no more regard to them in what he does than you pay to bug you step on while crossing the street. They are nothing; he is everything.

This is how he compensates for that demeaning value judgment his narcissistic parent imprinted on his soul. This is how he edits the shameful image of himself he saw reflected in that parent's contemptuous eye. In other words, he does to others what that parent did to him. Since that's what made that parent a god, that's what makes him a god.

How does he enact this fiction? By treating you like dirt. And by maligning you behind your back. You could define a narcissist as someone who likes to treat others like dirt and ruin their reputations.

This is the game a narcissist plays, in a nutshell. Because he is an emotional imbecile (i.e., mentally of pre-school-age maturity).

The only people he doesn't abuse this way are those he doesn't dare abuse. Or those he can aggrandize himself by association with. Or those he can con and is setting up for a con job. Like psychopaths, narcissists view others as but objects, material to exploit for their own aggrandizement…

Narcissists are predators, but many people fail appreciate the meaning of that term, letting it in one ear and out the other...

Being predators puts narcissists in a special class with psychopaths, that class of people who don't wish you well, no matter how friendly their facade — that class from which sexual predators and all other kinds of predators come…

They're regulating, manipulating your reactions. But you aren't like them. Your reactions come from within. So, what are they ultimately regulating and manipulating? Your thoughts. Manipulation is mind control.

Manipulation is a subtle thing. So subtle that we are usually unaware of being manipulated, unless the manipulator blows it and breaks the spell. So, manipulators are putting thoughts into our heads that we think are ours. A very dangerous thing.

Since a narcissist isn't acting on normal human premises, since all he is doing is playing you for the reaction he wants, truth is irrelevant. Truth or lies — it's all the same to him. Whichever works. Usually that's lies.

It would be more correct to say that there is no such thing as truth to a narcissist. Because there is no such thing as truth when playing Pretend. That's why narcissists and psychopaths beat lie detector tests...

Psychopaths are known to get so good at manipulating people that, by the time they're teenagers, they routinely fool and manipulate mental healthcare professionals, judges, prison officials, parole boards, and social workers who know they are psychopaths, are on the lookout for attempts to manipulate them, and should be immune to manipulation.

It isn't a matter of intelligence: it's a matter of practice, experience. This is because most of what transpires in interaction happens too quickly to think it through…

Don't trust an institution or organization to filter out the personality disordered on the road to the top. Indeed, narcissists have great climbing skills!

Narcissists are expert at tearing down whoever is above them on the ladder of success. That's what narcissists do, nonstop, all their lives, because that's what narcissism is. They get very good at it, because it's an aspect of the disease, an aspect that is more a benefit than a curse in society. In fact, they get so good at climbing over those they throw down that they come out smelling like a rose, because nobody even knows who instigated the talk that destroyed that person…

What's more, narcissists have no compunctions about exploiting and tearing down their betters, because they have no empathy, no conscience. Another big advantage over normal people.

Nor do they have any compunctions about "getting tough" with their subordinates and firing people. They love doing that, because that's what narcissists do — vaunt themselves on others by bullying whomever they can. It's an aspect of the disease. And it's an asset, because it makes them look like good "tough" managers of personnel.

Narcissists are shameless but subtle self-promoters, expert at carving out the perfect (false) image for themselves. Yet another big advantage.

In fact, being for looks only, they see no reason to work for credit or credentials, so they just fake it whenever possible. They may cheat their way through college or buy a degree from a diploma mill or fake their credentials altogether. On the job they steal the credit that belongs to others…

I should think that a narcissist would not be at home in a smart and sophisticated big business with competent personnel managers, one that measures job performance accurately by objective metrics. Most of the narcissists I have known were in the "helping professions," particularly education. Little real accountability and abundant means to fake it.

Among those who were teachers that I have known or heard about, I noticed a peculiar similarity. They avoided accepting any position that would set them up as the responsible party and a target for criticism. For example, they would come up with excuses for why they could not fill a vacant head-coaching position. They preferred to call the shots from behind the scenes as a "humble" assistant coach, who manipulated the head coach.

…This is why narcissistic bullies in the workplace are a particular problem in private nonprofit institutions.

…In fact, the "helping professions" in general attract more than their share of narcissists: little real accountability and plenty of ways to fake it. All you have to do is fool people: you never have to prove that you are doing a good job.

…No one wants others to see them as bad. Moreover, that's the kiss of death to a predator, because it's like a repellant that warns potential prey to mistrust and stay away from him. Indeed, if you were a malignant narcissist, what would be your biggest fear?

Exposure, right? You're like a vampire to whom the light of day is lethal. Your greatest fear would be the same as that of any hungry, stalking predator — exposure.

You'd live in constant fear of people finding out that you're a wolf beneath your sheep's clothing, that you just use people, that you want to take away anything they have that you don't have, and that you will vandalize their image to improve your own. You'd live in constant fear of them learning the shocking truth about your past exploits, about the many you've used and trashed in your wake. You'd live in constant fear of people discovering, not just what you do for a moral living, but whom you do it to.

Since narcissists are such expert con artists, how do you spot them? …Here are eight red flags:

• puts on a conspicuous display of goodness and kindness
• damages the images of most others
• has a history of past upheavals
• hated for mysterious reasons by people close to them
• exhibits unnatural and perplexing behavior — backwards reactions to things
• is a control freak, trampling privacy/boundaries
• is extremely self-absorbed
• has a hostile reaction to attention and credit given others

…If you know a narcissist's history, you will usually see a track record of mysterious upheavals in his life. He suddenly up and moves to a different school or job in a different town every few years. That is, every time the good angels in his Pathological Space start comparing notes, get his number, and become enraged.
-----------------------
From: What Makes Narcissists Tick - Understanding Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)

Wolverhampton University's Chief Operating Officer, Samantha Waters, Formerly Samantha Gainard, is at it again

 It has come to light that Samantha Waters, the Chief Operating Officer, formerly known as Samantha Gainard, has a history marred by controversy. This raises serious questions about her conduct and leadership at the University. 

In a previous incident where Waters, then Samantha Gainard, was suspended from her role as Dyfed Powys Police's head of legal services following allegations of an affair with the force's married deputy chief constable and questionable payments to her ex-husband's law firm.

(see https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3504259/Police-legal-director-accused-affair-married-deputy-chief-constable-suspended-payments-ex-husband-s-law-firm)

Despite her past indiscretions, Waters has managed to climb the ranks, now holding a senior position of authority within the institution.

Upon joining the University of Wolverhampton, Waters made a deliberate effort to rebrand herself, shedding her previous identity as Samantha Gainard. This strategic move was accompanied by a noticeable change in image, perhaps in an attempt to distance herself from the scandal that plagued her when she worked at Dyfed Powys Police.

However, recent events have brought Waters' past back into the spotlight, raising questions about her fitness for her current role. As the University's Chief Operating Officer, Waters holds significant responsibilities, including oversight of whistleblowing procedures, safeguarding protocols, and crucially, financial affairs.

It is this last point that has raised the most eyebrows among the university community. Waters wields considerable power over the institution's purse strings, a fact that seems incongruous given her past missteps. How could someone with a history of controversy and allegations of impropriety be entrusted with such crucial responsibilities?

Moreover, while there is no direct evidence of a connection, it is notable that the University of Wolverhampton finds itself in significant financial debt, reportedly exceeding £100 million. Waters, in her position of oversight, would undoubtedly have some influence on the university's financial decisions and strategies.

The irony of the situation is palpable. A figure with a tarnished past now holds the keys to the university's financial stability and integrity. The concerns among students, staff, and stakeholders are not unwarranted, as Waters' track record raises legitimate doubts about her ability to lead effectively and ethically.

Calls for transparency and accountability have resurfaced, with many demanding a thorough examination of Waters' actions and decisions within the university. The specter of her past indiscretions looms large, casting a shadow over her current role and the institution as a whole.

As the University of Wolverhampton grapples with these revelations, the need for clarity and reassurance grows more urgent. The decision-makers must address these concerns head-on, ensuring that the institution's integrity and financial well-being remain steadfast in the face of controversy. Until then, Samantha Waters' ascent to a senior position within the university remains a subject of scrutiny and unease.