Only a quarter of staff at Cambridge University are satisfied with how their department tackles bullying and harassment, according to an internal survey seen by the Observer.
Cambridge undertook its staff culture survey in January 2024 and is now facing accusations from academics that it tried to cover up the “grim” results, which have been released through freedom of information (FoI) requests.
A spokesperson for the university said this weekend that it was supporting departments to take action where issues had been identified. They said: “We take concerns about bullying seriously and strongly encourage anyone who experiences such behaviour to report it.”
Just 27% of staff agreed that they were happy with attempts to address bullying and harassment – with some of the most high-profile science departments scoring especially badly – and only half of staff (52%) said their department supported their mental health and wellbeing.
The results have prompted an academic at the university, astrophysicist Prof Wyn Evans, to break with tradition and seek nominations in the forthcoming election of Cambridge’s new chancellor on an anti-bullying manifesto, after Labour peer David Sainsbury announced his resignation from the post last year...
A survey by the university and the three main campus unions in 2020 found that nearly a third of staff had experienced bullying or harassment at work in the previous 18 months. Then vice-chancellor Stephen Toope wrote a statement to accompany the survey results, pledging action and stating: “To be a leading institution, we must accept this type of behaviour has no place at Cambridge.”
The university is far from alone in facing challenges of this kind. In 2020, a survey by the Wellcome Trust, one of the largest charitable funders of research in the UK, questioned more than 4,000 researchers across 20 universities, and found that nearly two-thirds of them had witnessed bullying and harassment, and 43% had experienced it themselves.
More than three-quarters of them felt that intense competition to win research grants and publish in high-profile journals – with research departments also competing to perform well in league tables and respond to government initiatives – had created “unkind and aggressive” conditions...
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/apr/12/cambridge-university-accused-of-bullying-cover-up-as-internal-survey-revealed
Faria, J. R., & Mixon Jr, F. G. (2020). The Peter and Dilbert Principles applied to academe. Economics of Governance, 21(2), 115-132.
London Metropolitan University: 473 NDAs.
University of Central Lancashire: 431 NDAs.
London South Bank University: 413 NDAs.
University of Sheffield: 335 NDAs.
University of Oxford: 256 NDAs.
Some universities refuse to provide data on non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) due to concerns over confidentiality, legal implications, and institutional reputation. NDAs are often used to protect sensitive information, and disclosing details about their use could violate the terms of these agreements or expose the university to legal risks.
Additionally, universities may fear that releasing such data could lead to negative publicity or scrutiny, especially if NDAs are perceived as being used to cover up misconduct or suppress complaints. This reluctance is further compounded by the lack of a standardised reporting framework, making it challenging for institutions to share this information transparently.
Source: Perplexity.AI
Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in higher education have significant financial and reputational costs. Between 2014 and 2019, UK universities issued nearly 11,000 NDAs, with 2,600 signed in 2017-18 alone. These agreements are often used to silence misconduct allegations, such as bullying or harassment, raising concerns about their impact on transparency and accountability.
NDAs can be costly. Some agreements cost as much as £500,000, and institutions like the NHS have spent millions on similar confidentiality clauses. Additionally, negotiating NDAs can lead to costly settlements, with colleges potentially paying between £20,000 and £200,000 in cases involving discrimination claims.
The reputational costs are also significant. NDAs can prevent institutions from addressing systemic issues, as they limit public disclosure of misconduct. This can hinder efforts to improve policies and practices, ultimately affecting the quality of education and the well-being of staff and students.
Recent legislative changes, such as the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, aim to curb the misuse of NDAs by banning their use in cases of sexual misconduct or harassment. These reforms seek to protect victims and promote transparency, though their long-term impact remains to be seen.
Source: Perplexity.AI
Grandiosity and Arrogance: Narcissistic leaders often exhibit grandiosity, arrogance, and a sense of entitlement, leading to poor decision-making and an inability to listen to others.
Lack of Empathy: They typically lack empathy, which can result in exploitative behavior and a lack of concern for the well-being of employees or students.
Charisma and Confidence: Despite their negative traits, narcissistic leaders may initially be perceived as charismatic and confident, which can help them ascend to leadership positions.
Impact on Institutions
Performance Decline: Studies have shown that narcissistic leaders can lead to declines in key performance measures, such as student satisfaction and research excellence.
Defensive Silence: Narcissistic leaders can foster a culture of defensive silence among employees, where individuals are reluctant to express ideas or concerns due to fear of retribution or lack of recognition.
Empire Building and Risk-Taking: Narcissistic leaders often engage in excessive financial risk-taking and empire-building strategies, which can destabilise institutions financially and strategically.
Identification and Hiring Practices: It is suggested that hiring processes should include psychometric tests to identify narcissistic tendencies in candidates.
Value Congruence: The alignment of values between leaders and followers can moderate the adverse effects of narcissism, but high congruence can also exacerbate defensive silence.
Hypercompetition: The competitive environment in higher education may incentivise narcissistic behavior as a means of self-promotion and survival.
Overall, narcissistic leaders in higher education can pose significant challenges to institutional performance and employee morale, highlighting the need for careful leadership selection and management practices.
Source: Perplexity.ai
...The common narrative is that the harasser is advancing science, mentoring future scientists and is simply too good to lose. Ultimately, in the eyes of the institution, the financial interests obtained through the harassers outweigh the harm endured by their targets. This virtually always results in the academic institutions stakeholders defending the bully and not addressing the rights of their targets. The unwillingness of the involved stakeholders to address academic harassment results in the lack of successful, fair and effective responses of the scientific community (and specifically institutions) to academic harassment: many recent reports suggest that sweeping the incidences of academic harassment under the carpet has been the common practice of many institutions to protect their interests...
...The harassment (and specifically bullying) process in various settings (including industry and academia) is generally divided into two major phases... the subjugation and control phase, where the target is subjected to continuous and relentless attack on their personality via many methods (e.g. constant criticism, exclusion, aggressive and disrespectful communications, surveillance at work and beyond the workplace, lower performance markings and other systematic negative social acts), and (ii) the destruction phase where the orchestration of the demise of the individual takes place. In the destruction phase, unsubstantiated, vague complaints are being fabricated with the intention of attacking the integrity of the researcher/employee and to bully them out of the job via disciplinary sanctions, suspension and dismissal...
...Available guidelines and reporting systems for sexual harassment and bullying are largely ineffective mainly due to a pervasive gap between policy and practice... which contributes to institutions protecting the perpetrators, while silencing and retaliating against reporters. As a consequence, high-profile academic harassers thrive in our science backyards as a rule rather than an exception, accompanied by the inevitable institutional betrayal... and (re)-traumatization of those who report bullying... Ultimately, effective institutional change is prevented and, hence, harassment is enabled and facilitated by different stakeholders through the reluctant acquiescence of silenced targets. This leads to a fear culture among bystanders...
...External legal aid is rarely feasible for targets. Universities have the funds that targets do not have to pay for lawyers to defend them, and perpetrators are supported by public resources... Circulating adverse publicity through the use of organized public relations departments is a process wide open to most hospitals and/or universities... Targets, by contrast, are often forced to comply with the code of silence through non-disclosure agreements...
From: https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1873-3468.14473
