What's the crime, Mr Wolf?

When bullies in the staffroom outnumber those in the playground, schools have to act fast. But many still deny there is a problem – especially when the bully is the headteacher or a senior manager. “Not enough employers are proactive about workplace bullying,” says Carole Spiers, founder of the Carole Spier’s Group, a stress management and well-being consultancy.

“They bury their heads in the sand and so the conspiracy of silence continues. The typical and easiest outcome is that the perpetrator stays put and the victim moves on. Then the bully’s reign of terror continues indefinitely.”

It is hard to measure the extent of workplace bullying in schools, partly because many victims keep it secret and partly because no single national organisation handles grievances. However, all the indicators point towards it becoming a dangerously prevalent trend.

Last year, 701 teachers contacted the Teacher Support Network about workplace bullying, discrimination or harassment from other adults. And research by the Ban Bullying at Work charity suggests one in five workers has been bullied in the past two years. Translated to schools, that equates to 100,000 bullied teachers.

The implications for teacher retention are colossal. Studies have consistently found that 25 per cent of those being bullied at work will quit – a further 20 per cent who witness bullying will also leave their jobs.

Samantha, a head of department from a secondary school in West Yorkshire, has left her job. “For a year I did not fully understand that I was being bullied,” she says. “When I did acknowledge it, it made me stressed. I was relatively new and had no one to talk with. The school had a polarised staff and it was hard to know who I could trust.”

After months of being repeatedly threatened with disciplinary procedures about a range of issues (including her absence following her partner’s death), being continually ignored by the head, having her workload increased despite pleas for support and being excluded from decisions that affected her, Samantha collapsed at school and was rushed to hospital.

Even then, the school rang her seven times in one hour the following day demanding she email in work. Just three weeks after her return, Samantha was experiencing severe headaches, panic attacks and neuralgia and was again rushed to hospital. She was signed off by her doctor and has now handed in her resignation.

The TES has spoken to several teachers who have had similar experiences. Many follow a familiar pattern. The victim is often unaware that they are being bullied, but then small incidents start to add up.

The bully may ignore victims, not consult them or become overtly critical. There are also frequent reports of ganging up and a sense of “them” turning against an increasingly isolated “you”. The inevitable result is a sense of disempowerment and decreasing self-esteem. Following a deterioration in mental and/or physical wellbeing, teachers attempt to talk to a non-bullying senior member of staff, who all too often tells them to “take no notice”. The next step is to turn to their union representative for help.

Fiona has been an Association of Teachers and Lecturers area representative for north-west greater London for almost nine years. She is supporting four teachers who are off work due to bullying-related stress, but is usually handling many more.

She says: “We know bullying is out there, but it can be difficult to identify and tackle. What may be unwarranted workplace bullying to one person is assertive management to another. In the majority of cases, the normal way out is for the victim to leave the school and perhaps the profession as well.”

By Hannah Frankel, Times Education Supplement, 15 March 2007

How would you cope?

The Kubler-Ross theory of grief has long been used as a model for describing the stages a person goes through when handling loss.

This was expanded on by an employment counsellor (Vancouver based, by the way) named Norman Amundsen to be used when looking at the stages in grieving over 'losing' a job.

Stephen has now used the model to apply to workplace bullying (all situations share loss, grief and change) and even with an audience of seasoned employment counsellors the adaptation seems to hold up.

The first screen shows the basic model, the second how repetition creates such damage.

From: http://www.nobullyforme.org

Powerless at the bottom of the pile...

Recently submitted post:

'I have just recently heard that my grievance is going to the committee stage... they have been unable to deny the grievance or push it aside... to dismiss it...

...the silence around my faculty is deafening... those with power avoid me... like I might contaminate them..

...someone today - let's call him - Andrew - we studied together for out MA - we struggled - but Andrew has been very successful in the university - I have hinted to him about the issues within the university... he is a radical... a critical thinker... passionate about education and learning... but today he couldn't look me in the eye... he has betrayed me... he has betrayed himself...

...as a while middle class woman I am learning through this experience what it is to be powerless at the bottom of the pile...

...I am learning that you have to keep picking yourself up... to have faith in what you believe in...

...because the lies about you are so juicy...

...the role of academics is to raise questions... to take risks... to argue...

...just as long as they don't do it about the academy...'

Aphra Behn

Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), status of new researchers and how not to complain about it - UK

Sometimes the management redistributes research to academics who are already established. Potential grants by new researchers are handed over to those established academics. The outcome is similar to snowballing: what is already a big ball takes everything in its path with the new researchers left struggling to find a way to stand on their own feets. - Posted by Anonymous to Bullying of Academics in Higher Education

So, off we went to the RAE web site to find out the following:

We clicked on 'Site Index' (bottom of web site), and then clicked on 'Complaints', followed by a click on 'Allegations concerning Higher Education institutions and the 2008 RAE', to read the following:

'Allegations of financial irregularity or impropriety, mismanagement, waste or fraud (public interest disclosures) about the higher education institutions (HEIs) that are funded by each of the higher education funding bodies (HEFCE, SFC, HEFCW and DEL) are handled by different procedures in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively. Public interest disclosures concerning HEIs and the 2008 RAE will be handled through these same procedures.' Followed by a single line: 'The procedures to follow if you wish to make an allegation concerning an HEI and the 2008 RAE are described.'

So we clicked on 'procedures to follow', to read the following:

'Procedures for making allegations concerning higher education institutions and the 2008 RAE. The 2008 RAE is managed on behalf of the higher education funding bodies for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (HEFCE, SFC, HEFCW and DEL) by a project team based at HEFCE.

Different procedures are in place for making and investigating allegations of financial irregularity or impropriety, mismanagement, waste or fraud (public interest disclosures) about the higher education institutions (HEIs) funded by each funding body. Disclosures concerning HEIs and the RAE will be handled through these same procedures. [So far this part is a repeat.]

If you wish to make such an allegation concerning an HEI and the 2008 RAE, either about its preparations for the RAE or its submissions, then you should follow the procedure that applies in the relevant country.

• For allegations concerning an English HEI funded by HEFCE, please follow HEFCE's procedure.
• For allegations concerning a Scottish HEI funded by SFC, please follow the procedure described in paragraph 23 of Guide for members of governing bodies of Scottish higher education institutions and good practice benchmarks' (SHEFC, HE/05/99)
• You can also refer to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
• For allegations concerning a Welsh HEI funded by HEFCW, please follow HEFCW's procedure
• For allegations concerning a Northern Ireland HEI funded by DEL, please follow DEL's procedure

The RAE team will handle allegations of perceived irregularity within RAE submissions that it receives from chairs or members of RAE panels during the assessment process through the RAE data verification procedures.'

Wow... In other words, there is no option for individual research active academics that have a problem with their RAE submission - or the lack of it/them - to take up the matter with the RAE - There is no such option! Full-stop.

The Betrayal of the Bystanders

Why do we feel so wronged by the people who believe a narcissist's lies about us? There are a number of reasons, but here is one of the biggest. It's because their credulity isn't innocent. If a stranger believes some outrageous lie about us, we aren't surprised, and we don't feel wronged by them. But if someone who knows us believes that same lie, we feel betrayed. Guess why? It's because they have betrayed us by believing that lie about us.

For example, if someone has known you for ten years, they see your track record of conduct for the last ten years. In other words, they have seen how you conduct yourself along this way of life we're bound upon. No, they don't see everything you've said and done. But they have seen a lot. They have seen you react to many various stimuli.

That track record of yours sketches your character in their eyes. This representation of what kind of person you are is based on your CONDUCT (your words and deeds), not on mere hearsay about you. So no one should be able to come along and tell them JUST ANYTHING about you.

For example, if you are a gentle person, in ten years that will show. Many times. The people you interact with daily will see sample after sample of you reacting gently to things that most others would react more harshly to. So no narcissist should be able to come along and insinuate that you are violent. Likewise if you are honest. In ten years that will show. Many times. The people you interact with daily will see sample after sample of you reacting honestly to things that most others would hedge the truth about. So no narcissist should be able to come along and insinuate that you are a liar.

Likewise if you are sensible. In ten years that will show. Many times. The people you interact with daily will see sample after sample of you reacting sensibly to things that most others would show poor judgment about. So no narcissist should be able to come along and insinuate that you are crazy and imagining things.

To believe these things about you they have to unknow everything they know about you. That is, they have to unknow you. They have to revise history. They have to erase that track record of yours. And that track record is your life. They have to wipe it out. That takes your life. Which is why they call it "character assassination." Your whole life goes up in smoke. And a figment of the imagination is substituted for it...

The narcissit's lie is always ironic. For the narcissist is out to smear one of your outstanding GOOD QUALITIES with the semblance of one of his own VICES. So, the allegation is always preposterous. No one who knows you should be fooled by it. Because it isn't believable. They should know better. But they willfully don't. Because the lie is juicy.

And so, there's nothing like a narc attack to show you who your real friends are.

By Kathy Krajco from What Makes Narcissists Tick

When the bully is the boss

..."Good employers purge workplace bullies," Olson says. "Bad employers promote them." Targets (she prefers this term to "victims") tend to be "empathetic, just and fair people." The bully "will watch and seek the opportunity to pick on someone who they see as vulnerable and threatening," says Barb Becker of Elroy, who says she lost a higher education job because of bullying. "It's hard to recognize when it's happening," she says, because incidents may appear petty to others. Today she works with sexually violent people and "I find that less stressful."

The affected employee's first reaction, Olson says, is that "if you're getting targeted, you must have done something wrong." Advice to "grow a thicker skin" or "don't take things so seriously" are typical, but Namie says bullying is "way beyond a personality conflict - it's not involving personality at all," but a power imbalance that is repeated and consistent. He thinks "bullies know they're bullies, but have rationalized their actions."

Consider the boss who ignores or rolls his eyes at a worker's question, the co-worker who intimidates and isolates through body language, voice level or gossip. An employee may be treated differently than peers: excluded from department socializing, or his work accomplishments may be minimized...

"There's no case law for this, and in the vast majority of cases, there is no legal recourse," Namie says. Eleven states have introduced 25 bills to address bullying, and Joanna Thoms of Menasha, in litigation with Berbee Information Networks Corp. because of alleged bullying, is trying to get legislation introduced in Wisconsin.

Australia, Quebec and several European nations recognize "mobbing in the workplace" and for years have had laws in place to control it. "Until evil is named, it cannot be addressed," Marquette University ethicist Daniel Maguire has said, in support of a book about this topic. Olson says being a tough boss, or an employee who challenges authority, is different than bullying. Bullying, she says, is deliberate, hurtful and repeated. It is mistreatment "driven by the bully's desire to control the target."

"The stress, as a consequence, is like post-traumatic stress syndrome," says Olson. She and Namie also draw parallels to domestic violence, in which the target sometimes blames herself for the situation. "It falls on the abused to stop" the behavior," Namie says. There is denigration, a tendency to "blame them for their plight and force them to resolve it."

Stress can be compounded by the reactions of co-workers. "Other people around the target tend to keep their head down; we can't cope with the illogic of it, so there is this problem with people jumping on board" by ignoring, isolating or ganging up on the person being bullied, Olson says.

Sweden in 1994 enacted the first legislation to confront bullying. Quebec legislation, enacted 10 years later, has since resulted in the filing of 4,000 complaints - but "people are fairly discouraged," Namie says, because only one has made it through the legal labyrinth.

Olson believes there is a growing amount of bullying at work, in part because "hierarchy was more established in the past - you knew your place, you got and followed your orders." Having a more egalitarian society changes those dynamics, says Olson, who conducts workshops on bullying for college students, employment lawyers, labor unions and others.

"Bullying may be difficult to detect, but it is far more common than harassment or workplace violence and can be equally as devastating...

What are the solutions? "You need to support the target," Olson says, and "use mission statements to hold feet to the fire." Building a respectful workplace, she says, means modeling the behavior that you'd like to see in others. It can be less abrasive to inquire about "what's working around here?" and "how do we want to be treated?" instead of pointing fingers of blame to improve the work environment.

...A challenge often is "to break the denial about the source of their problem," Namie says. There is a tendency to fear a problem executive, or people in power "have liked them so long" that dismissal seems preposterous. "Friendships and relationships trump productivity and fairness," he says.

"There is a huge joint interest in solving this problem," Olson says, who notes that "most employees start a job enthusiastic, but we suck the life out of people instead of nourishing" them.

Bullying rife in RAE run-up - UK

The research assessment exercise is a major cause of the bullying taking place at universities, a survey on bullying by The Times Higher suggests. One in ten university staff who responded to the survey said the RAE was directly linked to bullying in the academic workplace, an analysis of the written feedback in the survey has revealed.

Many respondents alluded to big academic names or "RAE stars" brought in to boost the finances of departments and universities. Such stars seemed to be allowed to operate outside normal workplace rules, particularly when they brought large research grants with them, the survey found.

"The university is well aware of his behaviour but because he brings in significant grant income, will not act," one respondent said of a bullying academic.

Petra Boynton, the University College London psychologist who led the research, said that the data illustrated how far academics feel the RAE is to blame for bullying in higher education. "Respondents said managers had threatened their careers by not returning them in the RAE or making them go in directions they didn't want to, so they did badly in the exercise. A lot of it's about bad management and people in senior positions who are under a lot of pressure."

Nearly 700 academics said that they had been bullied in some way, an online survey carried out by The Times Higher in June and July found. The bullying ranged from being shouted and sworn at in front of others to having promotion blocked and being isolated from colleagues. Analysis of the written responses found that the RAE is perceived as putting increased pressure on university managers, which can lead to aggressive behaviour that filters down to departments.

Sue Harrington, a researcher on workplace bullying at the School of Psychology at Leicester University, said: "High pressure, high targets and competitive environments can lead to organisational bullying. Managers become much more task focused and autocratic and use behaviours that people perceive as bullying."

Many universities are more "aggressively focused" and competitive in the run-up to the 2008 RAE than during previous exercises, said Gillian Howie, a member of the Association of University Teachers' national executive. She said: "There's an explicit bullying that comes with aggressive management and then an implicit effect where people are responding to the environment and are feeling the pressure of it."

The AUT is pushing for universities to implement and publicise the equality code of practice for academics outlined in the funding councils' guidelines to universities on submissions. The final assessment criteria for the 2008 RAE are due to be published in January 2006.

'I was told I was a 1* and a no-counter...and made to feel worthless'

The upcoming research assessment exercise has exacerbated departmental pressures in one Russell Group university. "There is a very insidious vapour that sits on top of the department and limits your ability to act freely as an academic," said Alex (not her real name).

To boost the department's performance, the dean outlined a number of areas in which academics must conduct their research or face being ostracised. Alex was strongly advised to drop her research, which had been funded by smaller grants, because it did not fit comfortably with the school's themes. "I was told in no uncertain terms that if it doesn't count towards the RAE, then don't bother with these little lots of money." She was also, she says, "encouraged" to publish in big-name journals such as The Lancet.

Academics waste precious time trying to recalibrate work to fit the school's chosen areas of research so it appears to be valuable, she says. Alex has been passed over for promotion. "It feels as if I'm being marginalised in my department - like a child in a playground who is not wearing the right clothes."

Her university recently held a mock RAE to gauge departmental standards but it turned into an individualised exercise and led to name-calling. "I was told I was a 1* and a no-counter. It lowers your self-esteem and you are made to feel worthless." The university is trying to drag up its overall RAE score and "walking on bodies to get there", Alex says. Star researchers who were parachuted in to boost the overall RAE score are also problematic.

"They're brought in because of their research income but they do nothing to invest in future researchers. Sometimes they are so worked up and stressed that their behaviour is reprehensible. There's a hierarchy because of the RAE - counters, no-counters and stars and the power that goes with them. "Some of us are looking to leave and they make it feel like good riddance."

Published: 21 October 2005, Times Higher Education Supplement

One and a half years ago, one and a half years later...

Court of Appeal rules on meaning of qualifying disclosure - UK

The Court of Appeal has overturned part of the much criticised decision in Kraus v. Penna and has decided that it is enough for an employee reasonably to believe that a criminal offence or legal obligation exists when making a "qualifying disclosure" under the whistleblowing legislation.

Under the whistleblowing provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a qualifying disclosure is one which "in the reasonable belief of the person making the disclosure, tends to show", amongst other things, that a criminal offence has been committed or that a legal obligation has not been complied with.

In Kraus v. Penna, the Employment Appeals Tribunal held that, in a case where a whistleblower relies on a reasonable belief that the disclosure tends to show that a legal obligation has not been complied with, protection is lost if, as a matter of law, there is no legal obligation. The fact that the whistleblower reasonably believed the legal obligation existed did not matter.

The Court of Appeal has now overturned this point, stating that there is nothing in the whistleblowing provisions which requires the whistleblower to be correct in his reasonable belief that a criminal offence had been committed or that a legal obligation existed. Wall LJ stated that "the fact that (the whistleblower) may be wrong is not relevant, provided that his belief is reasonable and the disclosure to his employer is made in good faith".

This is clearly a sensible decision. As the Court of Appeal pointed out, there are sound policy reasons for this interpretation of the legislation as the purpose of the statute is to "encourage responsible whistleblowing". It would not be reasonable to expect every potential whistleblower to have a "detailed knowledge of the criminal law sufficient to enable them to determine whether or not the particular facts which they reasonably believe to be true are capable, as a matter of law, of constituting a particular criminal offence". The interpretation previously given had the potential to deter potential whistleblowers as they could lose protection from dismissal/detrimental treatment if it turned out that they were wrong to believe, however reasonably they held that belief, that a legal obligation existed or that a criminal offence had been committed.

From: Work Place Law

Research Assessment Exercise - UK

Anonymous post to this blog:

'Let the RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXCERCISE account for scientific misconduct. Top UK universities are getting away with data manipulation and with double counting.'

Behind every fascist and incompetent academic manager there is a serial bully...