http://www.ntuucu.org.uk
...This site is designed as an on-line resource on branch matters for use by members of the Nottingham Trent University Branch of UCU (University and College Union) and others interested in our work...
...UCU’s forerunners [AUT and NATFHE] produced an array of papers on the topic of harassment and bullying. Most recently the topic of institutional culture and institutional bullying has surfaced as an issue. At one of the last NATFHE conferences one member from a college in the further education sector gave an impassioned speech on how her college had stripped away the mechanisms of debate, reducing the frequency of staff meetings, reducing staff representation on internal committees and even removing staff representation from the college's governing body. This did not mean that staff were denied information. They were regularly sent in-house magazines and e-mails telling them about the college's achievements but this was not seen as a substitute for dialogue and debate.
At the same time as the college had reduced the mechanisms for debate changes had been made to the rights that the students had. A "Students' Charter" and a new "Students' Complaint Procedure" had been introduced. These initiatives were welcomed by staff and fully supported. However, with a declining resource base and with front line staff unable to voice their concerns it meant that such staff were open to criticism and pressure from every angle and were powerless to see that the concerns being raised by the students were genuinely addressed.
Fear of losing their promotion prospects or even of being dismissed provided additional psychological bonds preventing such staff from speaking out. Work related stress increased as did the number of instances of ill health. Staff were, of course, free to walk away from the situation by resigning and the conference was told that each year many did. However, economic pressures often made this an unrealistic option and many staff did not feel that they should be intimidated into a career change...
From: http://www.ntuucu.org.uk/bh.htm
September 29, 2006
September 23, 2006
Obituary: Tim Field
By Keith Munday, Member of the Core Group: Freedom to Care, and Honorary President, DAWN
At the time of going to press The Tim Field Memorial Lecture is being jointly organized by the two anti-bullying in the workplace support groups, OXBOW and DAWN. The intention is to hold the Lecture in Oxford on Saturday, 28th October 2006. See: www.dignityatworknow.org.uk
Tim Field, internationally renowned pioneer of anti-bullying in the workplace, and sometime director of Freedom to Care, died of cancer, at the age of 53, on 15th January 2006.
A fellow member of the Core Group of Freedom to Care has shared her impressions of Tim in the following way: 'I will always be indebted to Tim. I first met him at a Freedom to Care AGM and he struck me as being a quiet, modest man. Later I was to learn how far he had pushed the issue of bullying onto the public agenda. Every documentary I saw on TV listed Tim among its credits. His courage was astounding and he remains for me a beacon of hope'.
Tim had suffered from a serious breakdown as a result of the bullying directed towards him in 1994. But, in spite of this - or, perhaps because of this - Tim went on to establish the UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line in 1996, and its accompanying website Bully OnLine, the world's largest resource on workplace bullying and related issues. He wrote the highly influential book, Bully In Sight: How to Predict, Resist, Challenge and Combat Workplace Bullying, in 1996, and co-authored, with Neil Marr, Bullycide: Death at Playtime, an Expose of Child Suicide Caused by Bullying, in 2001.
In 1998, he published, through his own publishing house (Success Unlimited), David Kinchin's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: The Invisible Injury. In addition to this, he, lectured all over the world, wrote articles, appeared regularly in the media, and set up Bullyonline, an internet-based discussion forum, as well as source of support for those on the receiving end of this unacceptable form of behaviour.
As Honorary President of DAWN (Dignity At Work Now), an anti-bullying in the workplace support and campaign group, of which Tim was Patron, I admired him tremendously. He was a communicator par excellence, a campaigner, a leader, a teacher, and literally a life-saver. He displayed exceptional integrity, courage, loyalty, generosity and determination. He was compassionate, wise, self-effacing, perceptive and truly inspiring.
I first met Tim when he and I attended one of the spate of conferences dealing with workplace bullying in the latter half of the 1990s. He was already gaining a national reputation as a speaker in this relatively new area which was beginning to attract the keen attention of academics, trade unionists, lawyers, health professionals, and those engaged in personnel issues. For me, this was the start of a most enlightening and rewarding relationship which was to be cruelly cut short by Tim's passing.
Tim deservedly achieved an international reputation for his ability to convey with such profound insight and clarity the true nature of bullying in the workplace. His work gained academic recognition through the award of two honorary doctorates. Moreover, his reputation was enhanced even further by his willingness 'to put his head above the parapet' in his determination to expose, and hold to account, the perpetrators of wrongdoing, even though the sacrifices he made in so doing were undoubtedly at considerable cost to his own well-being. Tim was a good man. He has left an enduring legacy for those wishing to share, and to achieve, his vision of a bully-free world.
June 2006
From: http://www.freedomtocare.org/page337.htm
Checklist of mobbing indicators
'...Perhaps the most important indicator is shown here as No. 12, the enlargement of some real or imagined misdeed or fault in order to smear the target's whole identity, so that he or she is seen as personally abhorrent — a totally alien other, a dangerous, repugnant entity that turns the stomachs of good and decent people.
1. By standard criteria of job performance, the target is at least average, probably above average.
2. Rumours and gossip circulate about the target’s misdeeds: “Did you hear what she did last week?”
3. The target is not invited to meetings or voted onto committees, is excluded or excludes self.
4. Collective focus on a critical incident that “shows what kind of man he really is.”
5. Shared conviction that the target needs some kind of formal punishment, “to be taught a lesson.”
6. Unusual timing of the decision to punish, e. g., apart from the annual performance review.
7. Emotion-laden, defamatory rhetoric about the target in oral and written communications.
8. Formal expressions of collective negative sentiment toward the target, e. g. a vote of censure, signatures on a petition, meeting to discuss what to do about the target.
9. High value on secrecy, confidentiality, and collegial solidarity among the mobbers.
10. Loss of diversity of argument, so that it becomes dangerous to “speak up for”or defend the target.
11. The adding up of the target’s real or imagined venial sins to make a mortal sin that cries for action.
12. The target is seen as personally abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities; stigmatizing, exclusionary labels are applied.
13. Disregard of established procedures, as mobbers take matters into their own hands.
14. Resistance to independent, outside review of sanctions imposed on the target.
15. Outraged response to any appeals for outside help the target may make.
16. Mobbers’ fear of violence from target, target’s fear of violence from mobbers, or both...'
From: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/checklist.htm
1. By standard criteria of job performance, the target is at least average, probably above average.
2. Rumours and gossip circulate about the target’s misdeeds: “Did you hear what she did last week?”
3. The target is not invited to meetings or voted onto committees, is excluded or excludes self.
4. Collective focus on a critical incident that “shows what kind of man he really is.”
5. Shared conviction that the target needs some kind of formal punishment, “to be taught a lesson.”
6. Unusual timing of the decision to punish, e. g., apart from the annual performance review.
7. Emotion-laden, defamatory rhetoric about the target in oral and written communications.
8. Formal expressions of collective negative sentiment toward the target, e. g. a vote of censure, signatures on a petition, meeting to discuss what to do about the target.
9. High value on secrecy, confidentiality, and collegial solidarity among the mobbers.
10. Loss of diversity of argument, so that it becomes dangerous to “speak up for”or defend the target.
11. The adding up of the target’s real or imagined venial sins to make a mortal sin that cries for action.
12. The target is seen as personally abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities; stigmatizing, exclusionary labels are applied.
13. Disregard of established procedures, as mobbers take matters into their own hands.
14. Resistance to independent, outside review of sanctions imposed on the target.
15. Outraged response to any appeals for outside help the target may make.
16. Mobbers’ fear of violence from target, target’s fear of violence from mobbers, or both...'
From: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/checklist.htm
September 20, 2006
How to humanize higher education and reduce human suffering
By: Paul T. P. Wong, Ph.D., C.Psych. Coquitlam, B.C., Canada
'Year 2005 has been dubbed the "year of suffering" by Erin McClam, Associated Press writer. Last year was dominated by natural disasters and human tragedies - from tsunami, Katrina to Iraq war. The faces of suffering continue to haunt us.
Across the land, away from the spotlight, a different kind of suffering goes on unnoticed - in homes, workplaces, schools, and universities. I am talking about intentional cruelty against other human beings, such as physical and emotional abuse, bullying, oppression and exploitation...
How can people be so cruel? All kinds of explanations have been offered - sociological, psychological and spiritual. For example, the theology of human depravity can be used to account for the historical and continuous presence of evil in human societies. Poverty and privation are frequently cited as societal causes of violence. A host of internal and external factors, such as competition, greed, envy, scapegoating, abuse in childhood, blind ambition provide psychological explanations.
A more important question is: how can we create a kinder and gentler society? Different visions of utopia have been proposed, but none has succeeded. A society of harmony, equality, and compassion continues to elude us.
Does higher education make us more humane?
...we believe by promoting the values of humanism and liberal democracy through education, we can set people free from their intolerance, prejudice and brutality. There is a broad consensus that higher education can help create a civil society, which respects everyone's right to freedom, justice, dignity and quality of life. Indeed, education maybe our best hope for a better world.
Given the above assumptions and expectations, it is most disturbing to see many idealistic and enthusiastic students become disillusioned and cynical because of their negative experiences in centers of higher learning. Some students have been intimidated and verbally attacked by professors because of their political or religious leanings as documented by David Horowitz. Some have been sexually abused. Others have been exploited and abused by their supervisors -- some may have been tormented to the point of suicide.
Suicide on university campuses
...Too often, some students fear, suicides get written off as tragic flukes, but that sort of thinking is flawed, they say. For every Ph.D. candidate who kills himself, there are hundreds who become clinically depressed, drop out, or grimly endure bad situations in silence because of poor relationships with their advisers. This year, it was Mr. Altom; next year, it could be someone else, the argument goes.
In fact, it has been. Mr. Altom, who was about to enter his sixth year at Harvard, was not the first chemistry student to kill himself. There have been eight graduate-student suicides at Harvard since 1980. Four of the students were in the chemistry department, and three of the four, including Mr. Altom, worked for the same research adviser: Elias J. Corey.
...In 2002, Psychology Today reported an increase in clinical depression in both undergraduate and graduate students, and 30% of university counseling centers surveyed have reported student suicides. A more recent study by the American College Health Association showed that 15 percent of students met the criteria for clinical depression and suicide was second to accident as the leading cause of death among college students.
Is graduate education dysfunctional?
The causes of depression and suicides are many and varied. These range from latent psychological disorders prior to admissions, personal immaturity, inability to cope with pressure and failure, unrealistic expectations, loneliness, meaninglessness, broken romantic relationships and difficult student-advisor relationships.
Almost all universities provide adequate student counseling services to support students experiencing academic or psychological problems. However, these centers typically stay away from handling academic grievances and advise students to bring their complaints to their department heads.
The problem of harmful clinical supervision has received increasing attention in recent years (Ellis, 2001), but the detrimental effects of bad dissertation advising are much less researched ...The conclusion seems self-contradictory, until one realizes that academic and professional excellence can co-exist with dysfunctional relationships. While the survey showed that most students had good relationships with their advisors, "a substantial minority felt exploit". About one quarter of the students surveyed felt that their advisors used them as a source of cheap labor to advance their own research and help fulfill advisors' teaching and research obligations...
From my own experiences and observations of elite research universities, graduate students are expected to put in as many as 80 hours per week. In some universities, graduate students are asked to teach an entire course at either the undergraduate or graduate level without any remuneration or acknowledgement, because it is considered an honor to teach the course for a famous professor. This kind of unfair treatment is unheard of in any other kind of organizations...
These illustrious professors are willing and able to make personal sacrifices to achieve eminence in their fields; are their students prepared to make the same sacrifices? Maybe there should be a warning to potential graduate students applying to elite graduate schools: "Admission to this school may be hazardous to your health and well-being. Only the toughest and brightest need to apply."
Bullying and intimidation in higher education
I can understand the need to work 80 hours a week to find a vaccine against AIDS or avian flu, but I can't appreciate the value of such all-consuming passion for fame, money and power. The allures of big science can be just as destructive as the greed of big business and big military-industrial complex. To sacrifice students for personal gains is deplorable.
James Cook University actually has a university policy against bullying and intimidation between supervisors and students, and considers such behavior as a breach of the University Code of Conduct.
...Students' inability to identify bullying makes it difficult for them to respond effectively. Here are some common characteristics of workplace bullies, which can be readily applied to university professors:
* Workplace bullies are autocratic control freaks.
* They make it known that they have the power to destroy the career of their targets.
* They constantly demand respect and consideration whilst treat their subordinates as non-persons.
* They inflict intolerable pain and suffering on others without showing any consideration for the feelings of their victims.
* In spite of their absolutist and unethical behaviors they often get promoted, because they are selfish, manipulative, dishonest and convincing.
What can you do if your supervisor is a bully or psychopath? Your options are very limited, because of the risks of filing a grievance complaint, especially when your supervisor is very influential in the field. Typically, administrators try to cover up for the offender because they don't want to offend a superstar who brings in lots of money and prestige to the university.
The reward systems of most research universities are based on academic accomplishments and financial gains without paying too much attention to students' well-being. Like a steam-roller, the graduate education machine keeps on moving forward faster and faster, without considering how many young lives it has destroyed...
The need to humanize higher education
All kinds of reform of graduate education have been proposed, but few have been implemented or enforced. This inertia can be attributed to a university culture that values ranking and revenues in a highly competitive environment...
Much progress has been made in the area of sexual harassment on campuses. In many universities, there are designated sexual harassment or human rights officers. University administrators are inclined to take sexual harassment complaints seriously because of political correctness... However, in the area of academic bullying which affects more students, little progress has been made.
Most universities have developed policies and procedures to handle difficult advisor-student relationships and grievance complaints, but these guidelines are generally not very effective because of fear of retribution on the part of students and the fear of offending valued professors on the part of the administration. Furthermore, these guidelines do not even recognize the possibility that supervisors may have the problem of bullying and psychological impairment...
Success stories of the humanistic movement
Emory university has already made fundamental changes to humanize medical education with positive results. "We're trying to abuse students less," says Dr. Jonas Schulman, the driving force behind the reform, "and we want to make sure we're sending the message that we place a premium on people skills..."
There are also serious efforts to humanize the hospital. The key to Planetree Institute's patient-centered model is to create a health care environment in which not only patients experience caring, kindness, and respect, but also their families and the hospital staff. Susan Frampton (2003) has documented that they can dramatically increase patient satisfaction level simply by adding a human touch to hospitals.
...Leadership skills are just as important as research skills, because professors often have to manage large research teams of strong individuals with different personalities, cultural backgrounds, and creative ideas. The autocratic leadership style no longer works in the corporate world; how can we expect it to work in an academic community of free thinkers?
Humanizing higher education can be beneficial to both students and society. By creating a caring and engaging environment, universities can become a positive force in reducing human suffering and improving the quality of life for all...'
http://www.meaning.ca/articles06/president/humanity-jan06.htm
'Year 2005 has been dubbed the "year of suffering" by Erin McClam, Associated Press writer. Last year was dominated by natural disasters and human tragedies - from tsunami, Katrina to Iraq war. The faces of suffering continue to haunt us.
Across the land, away from the spotlight, a different kind of suffering goes on unnoticed - in homes, workplaces, schools, and universities. I am talking about intentional cruelty against other human beings, such as physical and emotional abuse, bullying, oppression and exploitation...
How can people be so cruel? All kinds of explanations have been offered - sociological, psychological and spiritual. For example, the theology of human depravity can be used to account for the historical and continuous presence of evil in human societies. Poverty and privation are frequently cited as societal causes of violence. A host of internal and external factors, such as competition, greed, envy, scapegoating, abuse in childhood, blind ambition provide psychological explanations.
A more important question is: how can we create a kinder and gentler society? Different visions of utopia have been proposed, but none has succeeded. A society of harmony, equality, and compassion continues to elude us.
Does higher education make us more humane?
...we believe by promoting the values of humanism and liberal democracy through education, we can set people free from their intolerance, prejudice and brutality. There is a broad consensus that higher education can help create a civil society, which respects everyone's right to freedom, justice, dignity and quality of life. Indeed, education maybe our best hope for a better world.
Given the above assumptions and expectations, it is most disturbing to see many idealistic and enthusiastic students become disillusioned and cynical because of their negative experiences in centers of higher learning. Some students have been intimidated and verbally attacked by professors because of their political or religious leanings as documented by David Horowitz. Some have been sexually abused. Others have been exploited and abused by their supervisors -- some may have been tormented to the point of suicide.
Suicide on university campuses
...Too often, some students fear, suicides get written off as tragic flukes, but that sort of thinking is flawed, they say. For every Ph.D. candidate who kills himself, there are hundreds who become clinically depressed, drop out, or grimly endure bad situations in silence because of poor relationships with their advisers. This year, it was Mr. Altom; next year, it could be someone else, the argument goes.
In fact, it has been. Mr. Altom, who was about to enter his sixth year at Harvard, was not the first chemistry student to kill himself. There have been eight graduate-student suicides at Harvard since 1980. Four of the students were in the chemistry department, and three of the four, including Mr. Altom, worked for the same research adviser: Elias J. Corey.
...In 2002, Psychology Today reported an increase in clinical depression in both undergraduate and graduate students, and 30% of university counseling centers surveyed have reported student suicides. A more recent study by the American College Health Association showed that 15 percent of students met the criteria for clinical depression and suicide was second to accident as the leading cause of death among college students.
Is graduate education dysfunctional?
The causes of depression and suicides are many and varied. These range from latent psychological disorders prior to admissions, personal immaturity, inability to cope with pressure and failure, unrealistic expectations, loneliness, meaninglessness, broken romantic relationships and difficult student-advisor relationships.
Almost all universities provide adequate student counseling services to support students experiencing academic or psychological problems. However, these centers typically stay away from handling academic grievances and advise students to bring their complaints to their department heads.
The problem of harmful clinical supervision has received increasing attention in recent years (Ellis, 2001), but the detrimental effects of bad dissertation advising are much less researched ...The conclusion seems self-contradictory, until one realizes that academic and professional excellence can co-exist with dysfunctional relationships. While the survey showed that most students had good relationships with their advisors, "a substantial minority felt exploit". About one quarter of the students surveyed felt that their advisors used them as a source of cheap labor to advance their own research and help fulfill advisors' teaching and research obligations...
From my own experiences and observations of elite research universities, graduate students are expected to put in as many as 80 hours per week. In some universities, graduate students are asked to teach an entire course at either the undergraduate or graduate level without any remuneration or acknowledgement, because it is considered an honor to teach the course for a famous professor. This kind of unfair treatment is unheard of in any other kind of organizations...
These illustrious professors are willing and able to make personal sacrifices to achieve eminence in their fields; are their students prepared to make the same sacrifices? Maybe there should be a warning to potential graduate students applying to elite graduate schools: "Admission to this school may be hazardous to your health and well-being. Only the toughest and brightest need to apply."
Bullying and intimidation in higher education
I can understand the need to work 80 hours a week to find a vaccine against AIDS or avian flu, but I can't appreciate the value of such all-consuming passion for fame, money and power. The allures of big science can be just as destructive as the greed of big business and big military-industrial complex. To sacrifice students for personal gains is deplorable.
James Cook University actually has a university policy against bullying and intimidation between supervisors and students, and considers such behavior as a breach of the University Code of Conduct.
...Students' inability to identify bullying makes it difficult for them to respond effectively. Here are some common characteristics of workplace bullies, which can be readily applied to university professors:
* Workplace bullies are autocratic control freaks.
* They make it known that they have the power to destroy the career of their targets.
* They constantly demand respect and consideration whilst treat their subordinates as non-persons.
* They inflict intolerable pain and suffering on others without showing any consideration for the feelings of their victims.
* In spite of their absolutist and unethical behaviors they often get promoted, because they are selfish, manipulative, dishonest and convincing.
What can you do if your supervisor is a bully or psychopath? Your options are very limited, because of the risks of filing a grievance complaint, especially when your supervisor is very influential in the field. Typically, administrators try to cover up for the offender because they don't want to offend a superstar who brings in lots of money and prestige to the university.
The reward systems of most research universities are based on academic accomplishments and financial gains without paying too much attention to students' well-being. Like a steam-roller, the graduate education machine keeps on moving forward faster and faster, without considering how many young lives it has destroyed...
The need to humanize higher education
All kinds of reform of graduate education have been proposed, but few have been implemented or enforced. This inertia can be attributed to a university culture that values ranking and revenues in a highly competitive environment...
Much progress has been made in the area of sexual harassment on campuses. In many universities, there are designated sexual harassment or human rights officers. University administrators are inclined to take sexual harassment complaints seriously because of political correctness... However, in the area of academic bullying which affects more students, little progress has been made.
Most universities have developed policies and procedures to handle difficult advisor-student relationships and grievance complaints, but these guidelines are generally not very effective because of fear of retribution on the part of students and the fear of offending valued professors on the part of the administration. Furthermore, these guidelines do not even recognize the possibility that supervisors may have the problem of bullying and psychological impairment...
Success stories of the humanistic movement
Emory university has already made fundamental changes to humanize medical education with positive results. "We're trying to abuse students less," says Dr. Jonas Schulman, the driving force behind the reform, "and we want to make sure we're sending the message that we place a premium on people skills..."
There are also serious efforts to humanize the hospital. The key to Planetree Institute's patient-centered model is to create a health care environment in which not only patients experience caring, kindness, and respect, but also their families and the hospital staff. Susan Frampton (2003) has documented that they can dramatically increase patient satisfaction level simply by adding a human touch to hospitals.
...Leadership skills are just as important as research skills, because professors often have to manage large research teams of strong individuals with different personalities, cultural backgrounds, and creative ideas. The autocratic leadership style no longer works in the corporate world; how can we expect it to work in an academic community of free thinkers?
Humanizing higher education can be beneficial to both students and society. By creating a caring and engaging environment, universities can become a positive force in reducing human suffering and improving the quality of life for all...'
http://www.meaning.ca/articles06/president/humanity-jan06.htm
August 04, 2006
Staff are silenced by fear of reprisals
Times Higher Education Supplement
Jessica Shepherd
Published: 04 August 2006
Poll shows lecturers are alarmed at growing threats to their academic freedom, reports Jessica Shepherd. Four in ten academics say their freedom to express controversial or unpopular opinions is under attack, according to a poll carried out by ICM for The Times Higher.
The survey exposes the extent to which university staff fear academic freedom is being eroded. Some 39 per cent of 502 respondents said their right to question received wisdom - enshrined in the Education Reform Act 1988 - was in jeopardy. Some 38 per cent of professors, 45 per cent of senior lecturers and 36 per cent of lecturers said that their academic freedom was under attack.
A separate Times Higher online poll also probed views on academic freedom. More than 40 per cent of 107 respondents said they felt pressure over what they could say about their work and institution. Almost a quarter admitted to self-censorship out of a fear of their institution, and a similar proportion self-censored lest their peers disapproved. One had been fired for falling foul of guidelines, two had been officially disciplined and nine unofficially reprimanded.
The Education Reform Act 1988 made it a legal right for academics to have the "freedom to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have". Many academics say managerial culture is eroding freedom.
Jessica Shepherd
Published: 04 August 2006
Poll shows lecturers are alarmed at growing threats to their academic freedom, reports Jessica Shepherd. Four in ten academics say their freedom to express controversial or unpopular opinions is under attack, according to a poll carried out by ICM for The Times Higher.
The survey exposes the extent to which university staff fear academic freedom is being eroded. Some 39 per cent of 502 respondents said their right to question received wisdom - enshrined in the Education Reform Act 1988 - was in jeopardy. Some 38 per cent of professors, 45 per cent of senior lecturers and 36 per cent of lecturers said that their academic freedom was under attack.
A separate Times Higher online poll also probed views on academic freedom. More than 40 per cent of 107 respondents said they felt pressure over what they could say about their work and institution. Almost a quarter admitted to self-censorship out of a fear of their institution, and a similar proportion self-censored lest their peers disapproved. One had been fired for falling foul of guidelines, two had been officially disciplined and nine unofficially reprimanded.
The Education Reform Act 1988 made it a legal right for academics to have the "freedom to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have". Many academics say managerial culture is eroding freedom.
Sally Hunt, joint general secretary of the University and College Union, said: "The Times Higher poll should act as a wake-up call. Universities must protect the rights of academics and the reputation of UK research.
"The number feeling threatened is unlikely to decrease unless universities stop their interventionist approach to research and stop overburdening academics with teaching hours and bureaucracy."
David Rhind, vice-chancellor of City University, added a clause on academic freedom to the university's charter in April.
He said: "There is not much point in having a university unless you have academic freedom. I would defend to my death the right to express an opinion that might offend a university or the Government, as long as there was strong evidence for it."
ICM interviewed 502 academics by telephone between June 6 and June 12.
jessica.shepherd@thes.co.uk
From: Times Higher Education Supplement
August 02, 2006
Salford university seeks mediation
'Poor report leads Salford to shake up grievance policy, writes Phil Baty.
Salford University is pioneering a "mediation" service after an internal report found that staff have little faith in the fairness of grievance procedures and believe that their managers close ranks to protect each other from misconduct claims.
Under a new eight-point equality and diversity strategy launched this month, Salford said that it had begun a "specific initiative" to learn from past grievance cases so that the "negative side-effects" could be minimised.
Peter Barrett, pro vice-chancellor, told staff this week that part of the initiative was a new mediation facility, which is designed to help the university deal with issues earlier and less formally.
To begin with, the service will be for ethnic minority staff only, but it is hoped it will be broadened to cover all grievance cases.
The announcement of what is believed to be a unique initiative comes nine months after The Times Higher reported the results of a survey of almost 1,000 staff and students at Salford on equality issues.
The report, from consultants The Gus John Partnership, called on Salford to take "urgent steps" to ensure management consistency in dealing with cases of misconduct to restore trust among the university's ethnic minority staff.
It revealed a widely held view that there was a policy at executive level to "protect managers come what may" and that this was "impacting on staff morale and engendering distrust".
The report, which listed 26 areas for improvement against 12 areas of strength, found "general perceptions of a culture of bullying among managers and the lack of a positive approach to whistleblowing".
Disabled and ethnic minority staff reported a "keep your head down" approach. The report said that there was a suggestion the executive team had been "complicit" in acts of discrimination and in "protecting managers who have discriminated".
Bill Gulam, a member of the Black Staff Network and an equality activist for the University and College Union, said his group had requested the mediation service after dealing with "three or four" cases that had gone all the way to an employment tribunal.
"It is really an opportunity for a reflective pause to allow people to step back from the line drawn in the sand, during disputes that are often extremely sensitive," he said. "It is entirely voluntary and does not take away anyone's legal rights."
In his announcement to staff this week, Professor Barrett, who chairs Salford's equality committee, said that an impact assessment of recruitment and selection of staff would also be carried out to reveal good practice and address problems.
He added that areas of concern included the university's "very low" proportion of disabled staff. It also has a low proportion of female professors.
A SCHEME TO RESTORE STAFF FAITH
* Mediation is available initially to ethnic minority staff only
* The policy is designed to sit within existing grievance procedures and does not in any way prevent a member of staff taking out a grievance
* Staff who take out a grievance can, with the agreement of the other side, seek resolution through mediation at any time
* There will be two mediators: a trained member of the Black Staff Network and a trained Link Personnel Manager
* If successful, the scheme will be extended to cover other relevant areas of employment
* Special mediation training for the personnel specialists in each of the university's departments, the personnel link managers and a team of volunteers from the Black Staff Network starts in September.'
From: Times Higher Education, 28 July 2006
Salford University is pioneering a "mediation" service after an internal report found that staff have little faith in the fairness of grievance procedures and believe that their managers close ranks to protect each other from misconduct claims.
Under a new eight-point equality and diversity strategy launched this month, Salford said that it had begun a "specific initiative" to learn from past grievance cases so that the "negative side-effects" could be minimised.
Peter Barrett, pro vice-chancellor, told staff this week that part of the initiative was a new mediation facility, which is designed to help the university deal with issues earlier and less formally.
To begin with, the service will be for ethnic minority staff only, but it is hoped it will be broadened to cover all grievance cases.
The announcement of what is believed to be a unique initiative comes nine months after The Times Higher reported the results of a survey of almost 1,000 staff and students at Salford on equality issues.
The report, from consultants The Gus John Partnership, called on Salford to take "urgent steps" to ensure management consistency in dealing with cases of misconduct to restore trust among the university's ethnic minority staff.
It revealed a widely held view that there was a policy at executive level to "protect managers come what may" and that this was "impacting on staff morale and engendering distrust".
The report, which listed 26 areas for improvement against 12 areas of strength, found "general perceptions of a culture of bullying among managers and the lack of a positive approach to whistleblowing".
Disabled and ethnic minority staff reported a "keep your head down" approach. The report said that there was a suggestion the executive team had been "complicit" in acts of discrimination and in "protecting managers who have discriminated".
Bill Gulam, a member of the Black Staff Network and an equality activist for the University and College Union, said his group had requested the mediation service after dealing with "three or four" cases that had gone all the way to an employment tribunal.
"It is really an opportunity for a reflective pause to allow people to step back from the line drawn in the sand, during disputes that are often extremely sensitive," he said. "It is entirely voluntary and does not take away anyone's legal rights."
In his announcement to staff this week, Professor Barrett, who chairs Salford's equality committee, said that an impact assessment of recruitment and selection of staff would also be carried out to reveal good practice and address problems.
He added that areas of concern included the university's "very low" proportion of disabled staff. It also has a low proportion of female professors.
A SCHEME TO RESTORE STAFF FAITH
* Mediation is available initially to ethnic minority staff only
* The policy is designed to sit within existing grievance procedures and does not in any way prevent a member of staff taking out a grievance
* Staff who take out a grievance can, with the agreement of the other side, seek resolution through mediation at any time
* There will be two mediators: a trained member of the Black Staff Network and a trained Link Personnel Manager
* If successful, the scheme will be extended to cover other relevant areas of employment
* Special mediation training for the personnel specialists in each of the university's departments, the personnel link managers and a team of volunteers from the Black Staff Network starts in September.'
From: Times Higher Education, 28 July 2006
June 20, 2006
Practical strategies to deal with workplace bullying
Now is the ideal time to take a hard look at bullying behaviour
The Independent Voice April 2002 Volume 2 Number 2 Page 4
'...The target's colleagues must demand justice, not revenge, because bullies are often the symptom of faulty systems rather than the actual disease. In healthy workplaces the target's problem must be the group's problem. A workplace must focus on peer mediation and collective responsibility, i.e. don't bring in consultants or outsiders to initially resolve issues. Workplaces need to develop their own definitions of bullying and write protocols to deal with targets and bullies.
The practical strategies
Healthy Workplaces can easily begin to address bullying through:
- Induction programs,
- Awareness programs for all continuing employees,
- Clear policies and procedures,
- Peer mediation program, and
- Providing staff with opportunities to self manage issues.
All approaches to changing workplace culture must include senior management and establish a formal grievance procedure. Each workplace must find its own answers rather than generic procedures being imposed from above. Moreover, each site needs a "driver" to help keep bullying on the agenda and ensure that all staff are involved.
A successful approach to addressing bullying in the workplace needs to:
1. Gain a commitment from management
2. Conduct surveys to gauge level of response required
3. Run awareness sessions
4. Establish consultative forums (e.g. through WH&S, SCC, etc)
5. Develop policies, procedures (e.g. maintain confidentiality) and strategies
6. Gain feedback from all staff
7. Plan the implementation and evaluation process
8. Conduct regular training for key staff'
From: Queensland Independent Education Union, Graham Perrett, gperrett@qieu.asn.au
Adelaide Workplace Bullying Conference - Skills for Survival, Solutions & Strategies
The Independent Voice, April 2002, Volume 2, Number 2, Page 4. By Paul Giles, pgiles@qieu.asn.au
Organisers Paul Giles and Graham Perrett report on the March 2002 Adelaide International Workplace Bullying Conference "Skills for Survival, Solutions & Strategies" they attended recently which brought together international experts on workplace bullying.
'...Norwegian research into workplace bullying presented at the Conference suggested that those who suffer most from bullying are often those with the most to give...
Einarsen also noted that the "[p]ersonality of the victim and offender as well as psychosocial factors at work seems to play a role in bullying at work as do the cultural values and norms of the corporate culture".
"Bullying seems not to be an either or phenomenon but a gradually evolving process" - often triggered by a work related conflict which escalates. In early phases the victim seems to be attacked only now and then. As the conflict escalates however, the frequency of the attacks becomes higher and the behaviour harsher...
Einarsen also noted that victims of bullying at work are often conscientious, literal-minded, often overachievers who have high expectations of themselves and their work situation...
Post traumatic stress following victimisation is largely due to the shattering of basic assumptions victims hold about themselves and the world. Specifically that:
- The world is benevolent;
- The world is meaningful;
- The self is worthy.
...This research would indicate that often those who suffer most from unacceptable bullying behaviour in the workplace are those with the most to give - those with high expectations of themselves and those who are prepared to go the extra mile because they believe that what they are doing is meaningful and important.'
From: Queensland Inependent Education Union - Bullying and Harassment Conference 2002
Workplace bullying among business professional - Thesis by Denise Salin, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration
'Leadership
In the section on organisational culture it was stressed that a very 'tough' and autocratic culture could be conducive to bullying. Similarly, a very autocratic style of leadership has been shown to be correlated with higher reports of bullying (Hoel & Cooper, 2000; O'Moore, Seigne, McGuire & Smith, 1998; Vartia, 1996). Ashforth (1994) has discussed potential destructive sides of leadership identified what he refers to as 'petty tyrants', i.e. leaders who exercise a tyrannical style of management, resulting in a climate of fear at the workplace. Such abusive leadership styles would be closely related to vertical bullying, i.e. superiors bullying their subordinates.
However, certain leadership styles may also be conducive of bullying among colleagues on the same hierarchical level. Several researchers have shown that a laissez-faire style of leadership is associated with higher levels of bullying (Einarsen et al., 1994a; Hoel & Cooper, 2000). Thus, the reluctance of superiors to recognise and intervene in bullying episodes may convey the impression that bullying is acceptable. Similarly, Einarsen et al. (1994a) reported a relationship between higher levels of bullying and disatisfaction with the amount of and quality of guidance, instructions and feedback given. Thus, bullying and leadership style seem to follow a curvilinear relationship, so that bullying is particularly frequent in cases of either very 'weak' or very 'tough' management styles...'
From: Thesis by Denise Salin, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, 2003
In the section on organisational culture it was stressed that a very 'tough' and autocratic culture could be conducive to bullying. Similarly, a very autocratic style of leadership has been shown to be correlated with higher reports of bullying (Hoel & Cooper, 2000; O'Moore, Seigne, McGuire & Smith, 1998; Vartia, 1996). Ashforth (1994) has discussed potential destructive sides of leadership identified what he refers to as 'petty tyrants', i.e. leaders who exercise a tyrannical style of management, resulting in a climate of fear at the workplace. Such abusive leadership styles would be closely related to vertical bullying, i.e. superiors bullying their subordinates.
However, certain leadership styles may also be conducive of bullying among colleagues on the same hierarchical level. Several researchers have shown that a laissez-faire style of leadership is associated with higher levels of bullying (Einarsen et al., 1994a; Hoel & Cooper, 2000). Thus, the reluctance of superiors to recognise and intervene in bullying episodes may convey the impression that bullying is acceptable. Similarly, Einarsen et al. (1994a) reported a relationship between higher levels of bullying and disatisfaction with the amount of and quality of guidance, instructions and feedback given. Thus, bullying and leadership style seem to follow a curvilinear relationship, so that bullying is particularly frequent in cases of either very 'weak' or very 'tough' management styles...'
From: Thesis by Denise Salin, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, 2003
June 19, 2006
National Union of Teachers (NUT) resolution on workplace bullying
NUT on the web. Posted on Site: Tuesday May 2 2006
'Workplace Bullying
Conference acknowledges the negative effects of workplace bullying on a teacher’s career. The persistent criticism of performance, attendance or other personal factors serves to undermine a teacher’s confidence, self-esteem and health.
Conference acknowledges that bullies are usually those in a position of power, head teachers and other senior and line managers. The abuse of this position causes unnecessary stress and suffering to a teacher who may or may not be vulnerable to this abuse. Furthermore, bullying succeeds where individuals are isolated and unsupported.
Conference believes that bullying is best challenged by a collective and organised response, and that union officials and union groups need up-to-date information and a range of strategies to help them eradicate bullying in schools.
Conference recognises the need to strengthen Union organisation at individual school level so that schools may more effectively deal with school health, safety and welfare concerns such as those caused by bullying and harassment.
Conference notes the vital and influential role played by safety advisers in
improving school safety and supporting school safety representatives.
Conference notes that silence serves to perpetuate this deplorable behaviour and believes that all teachers deserve to have dignity at work.
Conference acknowledges that bullying can take other forms including harassment by pupils or other members of staff who are not necessarily in more senior posts. This kind of bullying may particularly affect women, black & minority ethnic, and lesbian, gay, bi-sexual & transgendered staff who have long struggled against discriminatory attitudes.
Conference notes that there are varied reasons for a teacher to be vulnerable, including unjust OFSTED criticisms, poor staff relations and more often than not actually being more competent than the bully themselves.
Conference believes that the constant pressure and criticism from government, local authorities and OFSTED creates unreasonable expectations of schools which, in turn, help to create highly stressful environments in which bullying becomes commonplace. This is exacerbated by the continuing pressure placed upon schools to rise up the increasingly discredited and educationally damaging league tables to which schools are subject.
Conference believes that staff who are attempting to create a healthy work-life balance are often bullied into giving up time and resources beyond that which is reasonable. Staff with carer responsibilities are likely to be unfairly overlooked for promotion and training opportunities. Such staff are often challenged about a perceived lack of commitment to the school. They are also unfairly prejudiced in their attempts to secure management positions in schools.
Conference condemns the growing tide of homophobic bullying in schools and deplores the effect this has on staff and pupils. Conference believes that the tolerance of homophobic and sexist language creates an atmosphere in which people feel undermined, undervalued and despised. Conference congratulates the Union for its work in this field and instructs the Union to further explore ways of building campaign activities in schools.
Conference calls on the Executive to:
1. Build a public campaign to tackle the issue of workplace bullying and force it to be discussed at all levels.
2. Work with other organisations, particularly those with an expertise in this field, and trade unions in developing this campaign.
3. Ensure that all Health and Safety Reps and Advisers have appropriate and thorough training on dealing with issues of bullying in the workplace.
4. investigate (a) to (c) below and implement according to best current practice in the Union and other unions: (a) How safety representatives and safety committees (see Safety representatives and Safety Committee Regulations 1977) in schools can be most effectively promoted and established as a means of improving school union organisation for the health, safety and welfare of staff. (b) The use of safety representatives and school safety committees as a means of combating stress related to bullying and harassment. c) The impact on the content and provision of health and safety training at local and national level.
5. Ensure that all schools have meaningful and supportive policies to protect teachers from harassment and bullying.
6. Campaign vigorously against aggressive and hostile sickness, absence and capability procedures.
7. Give publicity through Union journals and press releases to significant cases where the Union has intervened successfully to support members who faced bullying;
8. Publicise and promote the benefits of flexible working and less hierarchical
forms of management.'
Are there similar resolutions in existence from our academic union UCU? (UCU = AUT + NATFHE following the recent merger)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)