This article has been reproduced
with the kind permission of Keith Munday
The Bullying of Teachers Through the Use
of Formal Disciplinary Procedures
by
Keith Munday 2003
Index
Abstract
Bullying: Definitions, Organisational Culture
and Legal Obligations
Research
Approach
Background Information on the Target of Bullying
and the Bully
Disciplinary Procedures
Breaches of Disciplinary Procedures
Techniques Employed by the Bully
Conclusions
References
ABSTRACT
Bullying
comes in many different guises; ranging from the primitive
and blatant through
to the subtle and heavily camouflaged.
Included towards the latter end of
this continuum of behaviours are those situations
where the policies and procedures
designed to ensure fairness and justice at work
are used by unscrupulous managers
to thwart these aims.
This
article draws on a case study involving a teacher subjected
to disciplinary action instigated by
her head teacher, who, in the opinion of the writer, used
the school’s disciplinary
policy as a ‘weapon in her
bullying armoury’.
Examples of the head’s conduct
which caused a serious deterioration
in the teacher’s
state of health are examined.
Specific areas of procedural abuse
are discussed with respect
to the control of information and
the exploitation of ineffective checks
and balances.
The
article endeavours to show that bullying can ‘stack
the odds’ heavily in favour
of the perpetrator,
thereby ensuring the likelihood
of justice is significantly
diminished.
BULLYING:
DEFINITIONS, ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS
top
The
insidious nature of bullying in the workplace is being
increasingly
exposed and
the world of education is no
exception as far as this
phenomenon
is concerned (e.g.
Adams, 1992; ATL, 1996; Blase & Blase,
2003; European Agency for Safety and
Health at Work, 2002; Field,
1996; Graves, 2003; Hoel & Cooper,
2000; NASUWT,1996;
Randall, 1997; Randall, 2001;
Rayner, Hoel & Cooper,
2002;
Tehrani, 2001).
Whilst
the importance of high ethical
standards is
espoused in public,
the reality, as seen through
the daily experiences
of many teachers,
is frequently
very different. The way in
which they are
treated is all-too-often
unfair, degrading,
and arguably illegal. Given
this state of affairs,
this article considers the tactics of those educational
managers who set out to malign
the professional,
as well as, the personal lives of
their colleagues through
abuse of
the disciplinary
process.
The
term ‘workplace bullying’ conveys
a range of nuances. The
Andrea Adams Trust talks of:
Unwarranted,
offensive, humiliating, under-mining [sic]
behaviour towards an individual
or groups of employees
and
An
abuse of power or position,
that can cause such anxiety
that people
gradually
lose all
belief
in themselves,
suffering
physical
ill health
and mental
distress
as a direct
result.
(The Andrea
Adams Trust,
1997, p.
1)
Einarsen’s
definition (1998) highlights the feelings
of
the victim:
bullying occurs “when someone persistently
over a period of time, perceives him/herself
to be on the receiving
end
of negative actions from
one
or several others,
in
a situation where the one at
the
receiving end has
difficulties
defending
him/herself
against
these
actions” (p.2).
Randall
(1997)
comments: “Bullying
is
the
aggressive
behaviour
arising
from the
deliberate
intent
to
cause physical
or
psychological
distress
to
others” (p.
4), whilst
White
(1999) emphasises
the
stress caused
by
the
bully’s
actions
which in large
measure are
the result of “organisational
factors,
such as weak management or
a culture of
fear ……….” (p.
29).
There
are compelling
grounds for
believing that
bullying is
rife within
teaching.
The UK National
Workplace Bullying
Advice Line,
founded in
January 1996,
dealt with 1,992
cases of
bullying during
the first
25 months
of its
operation, and
approximately 20%
of these
cases concerned
teachers, lectures
and school
administrative staff
(Field, 1998).
The most
comprehensive research
undertaken in
the UK,
by Hoel
and Cooper
(2000), found
that teaching
was amongst
those occupations
at highest
risk from
bullying with
15.5% of
teachers stating
they were
currently being
bullied, and
35.4% saying
they had
been bullied
over the
last five
years.
Consideration
of the
issues involved
is helped
by having
in mind
those overlapping and
interwoven concepts
implied by
organisational culture.
The labels
applied to
the dynamics
of the
psychological contract and management
style, provide
a vocabulary which
facilitates discussion
of the
issues involved.
It is
the constantly
evolving reciprocal
nature of
relationships which
matters to
those who
constitute the
organisation’s
workforce. And
it is
the ability
of researchers
to capture
the essence of
these relations
hips which
adds credibility
to their
findings and
conclusions.
Power,
control and
authority are
useful in
explaining both
why and how
managers bully.
Morgan (1998)
mentions in
his list
of the
sources of
power: reliance
on formal authority;
the use
of organisational
structures, rules
and regulations;
control of decision
processes; control
of knowledge
and information;
and interpersonal alliances,
networks and
control of ‘informal organisations’.
All of
these are
at the bully’s
disposal and
have a
clear resonance
in the
light of
the evidence
presented in this
article.
Notions
of good
practice and
quality (Munday,
1999), coupled
with the
legal obligations imposed
upon
organisations, provide
benchmarks or
criteria, against which
to examine
the suitability
of an
organisation’s
culture
in
practice
for
the business
it is
engaged in.
West-Burnham’s
(1997) seven
key
precepts help
to aid our
understanding of
total
quality;
two of
them, focusing
on the
customer and
driving
out
fear,
are
worthy of
note in
this context. The
significance of
the former precept derives
from the
fact: “The customer is the raison
d’être of
the
organisation and
also provides
the definition
of quality” (p. 37). The customer
is “anyone
to whom
a product
or service
is provided” (p.
41), and
it, therefore,
follows that
customers include
those who
work within
or for
an organisation.
When viewed
in their
capacity as
recipients of
services provided
by schools,
teachers are
customers, and
have the right
to be
treated with
respect and
courtesy by
their employers.
The significance
of the
latter precept
relates to
the fact
that “the
only way
to a
climate of
improvement is to
create a
culture which
is based
on positive
regard and
a sense
of being
able to learn” (p.
37). It
follows that
schools cannot lay
claim to
being total
quality organisations if
they
fail to
act on
any of
the precepts.
Bullying is
the antithesis
of behaviour
based on
positive regard.
Bullying
is a
major source
of ill-health
which can
have profound
consequences for organisations
, as
well as
the victims.
Employers may
face heavy
financial penalties and
loss of
reputation should
they become
subjected to
legal action.
They may
also pay
a high
price in
terms of
increased levels
of absenteeism,
high staff
turnover, and declining
levels of
performance, apathy
and low
morale. (European
Agency for Safety
and Health
at Work,
2002; Trades
Union Congress,
1998; Travers & Cooper, 1996).
Problems associated
with relationships
with colleagues
are a
major factor causing
stress amongst
teachers (Webster,
1990; Brown & Ralph,
1994), and
Health and
Safety Executive
publications are
now including
bullying as
a cause
of stress-related illness
(e.g. 1997).
Cooper has
provided telling
statistics: he
estimates that bullying
is responsible
for one-third
to one
-half of
employment-related
sick
leave (cited
in Stephen,
1998), and “that
some 40
million working
days a
year are
lost because
of bullying
at work,
more than
160 times
the number
of days
lost through strikes.
The cost
to the
overall economy
probably lies
between £3
billion and £4 billion
a year” (cited
in NASUWT,
1996, p.
1).
The
implications of
dysfunctional organisational
culture
have been
highlighted in
a number
of reports
dealing with
abuse and
malpractice. Scandals,
such as
those reported
by the
inquiry into
children’s
heart surgery
at the
Bristol Royal
Infirmary (BRI Inquiry,
2001), are
the more
disturbing when
they relate
to a
range of
caring professions
engaged in
the provision
of social
services, medical
treatment and education
- areas
where one
would expect
the highest
standards of
care and
concern
to ensure
the safety
and well-being
of clients.
A number
of common
themes emerge
from the
inquiries undertaken:
- serious
breakdowns in communication
- flawed
systems of managerial oversight
- an
unwillingness to act upon complaints which are merely
ignored and
swept to
one side
- a genuine sense of fear and helplessness on the part of those
wishing to
expose the
truth
- a
climate of implied, and at times explicit intimidation,
and
- a
disregard for the tenets of good practice and laid-down
policies, let alone
the law.
The
judgements
of employment tribunals
and various inquiries
make it clear there is often
a complete
breakdown in
trust, in
respect for
natural justice,
and in
the application
of the
rule of
law -
all essential
ingredients in
caring and
supportive relationships.
Bullies have
shown time
and again
an overwhelming
contempt for
the interests
and well-being
of their
clients and
fellow workers.
They believe
themselves to
be unaccountable
and above
the law,
and tend,
at least
in their
own terms,
to thrive
where abuse
is allowed
to flourish
and fester.
The situation
is compounded further
when the
bully occupies
a position
of leadership.
Whilst
there is
no legislation
at the
present time
which specifically
outlaws bullying, employers
have legal
obligations
placed
upon them
to exercise
a duty
of care
in order
to safeguard
the physical
and mental
health
of
their workers.
If the
employer engages
in unreasonable
behaviour
which
destroys
the
trust and
confidence between
employer
and
employee,
the
latter
may
be entitled
to a
claim for constructive
dismissal
(Joseph,
2000).
Under
the Management
of Health
and Safety at
Work Regulations,
1999, employers
are required
to carry
out risk
assessments and
to take
appropriate
action
regarding
the
risks identified
(Labour
Research
Department,
2001).
Over
time, it
will be
interesting
to
observe
what
impact
the Human
Rights
Act,
1998, will
have, and
how successful
the campaign
to enact
the Dignity
at Work
Bill
will
be.
We
have a
situation
where
many educational
institutions
have
found it
difficult
to
keep
pace with
the demands
of constant
initiatives
and
change
(Munday,
1999). Short-term, ‘quick-fix’ answers
have sometimes
outweighed more
appropriate, long
-term
considerations,
and this
has, on
occasions, led
to a
denial of
natural justice
for
those
employees
who
have been
subjected
to
the actions
of management
based on little
more than
ignorance
or
incompetence.
Moreover,
Ball
(1998)
states
that
the traditional bureaucratic professionalism of head teachers
has been
replaced
in recent
times by a managerialism which is driven by a self-interest
aimed at ensuring survival
whilst having to contend with the competitive nature of the
educational marketplace.
He notes the “displacement of values-talk and of the ‘service
ethic’” (p. 3), as well as
“
the dark side of the new relations and new organisational forms
which manageri-alism brings into play” (p.
1). The growing sense of mistrust engendered amongst the workforce
will inevitably adversely affect the employment
relationship (Herriot, Hirsh, & Reilly,1998).
RESEARCH
APPROACH
top
The
case study is a much-favoured method of educational research,
and its key features are dealt with
extensively in the research literature. A major criticism
of the
case study is the inability to draw scientific generalisations
from its findings, that is to
say, generalisations for which there are no exceptions. However,
as Bassey (1999)
points out, fuzzy generalisations can be both useful and
legitimate . These contain“
built-in uncertainty”, which is not necessarily a bad
thing , in that:
….
in [using] the adjective ‘fuzzy’ the
likelihood of there being exceptions
is clearly recognised and this seems an appropriate concept
for
research in areas like education where human complexity
is
paramount. (p.52)
The
writer wishes to make it clear that in addition to being
an observer, he is also a
participant in the research process as a result of his friendship
with the teacher who
is the main focus of this article. She first contacted him
following a letter he had
published in The Times Educational Supplement on the issue
of bullying by school
managers. As a result he offered practical support to help
her deal with the problems
she was encountering at work, including acting as her official
representative on
various occasions. Moreover, the writer acknowledges his
own prejudices and deep
feelings of injustice, which emanate from having been bullied
himself, along with the
fact that he is now involved in anti-bullying in the workplace
support a nd campaign
initiatives. He admits he is attracted by the emancipatory
potential o f this kind of
research and the opportunities it presents for facilitating
social justice (Griffiths, 1998;
Johnston, 2000).
BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
ON
THE TARGET
OF THE
BULLYING
AND
THE BULLY
top
For
the purpose
of this
study
the
teacher
who
claims
to
be the
target
of
bullying
is
referred
to
as
X,
and
the
Head
Teacher,
whom
she
regards
as
the
main
perpetrator
of
the
bullying,
is
referred
to
as
Y.
The
school
in
which
they
work
is:
..........
a large
primary
school
situated
close
to
..........
[the]
city
centre
and
serving
an
area
of
acute
social
and
economic
disadvantage.
Pupils
live either
in
high-rise
flats
or
in
housing
association
or
municipal
housing. ..........
The
majority
of
pupils
(85%)
come
from
minority
ethnic
communities
with
over
half
(55.6%)
having
English
as
an
additional
language. (OFSTED
Inspection
Report,
1998,
p.
13)
Teacher
X
is
female,
was
born
overseas,
and
was
a
late
entrant
to
the
profession. She
speaks
several
la
nguages;
a considerable
asset
having
regard
to
the
pupils’
family
backgrounds,
and
she
has
acted
as
a
positive
role
model
in
carrying
out
the duties
of
a
magistrate
over
many
years.
Her
work
as
a
subject
co-ordinator
was
commented
on
in
the
most
recent
OFSTED
Inspection
Report
in
1998:
The
school
policy
and
scheme
of
work
are
satisfactory
and
the
co-ordinator
has
created
an
environment
in
which
this
subject
is
making
a
positive
contribution
both
to
the
overall
curriculum
and
to the
life
of
the
school. (p.
36).
Head
Teacher Y,
also female,
was appointed
from outside
the school.
Her
management
of the
school
is
referred
to
in the
Report
in
the following
terms:
The management
of
the
school
is
good.
The
recently
appointed
headteacher
is
providing
very
good
leadership.
She
has
a
clear
vision
of
the school
and
has
begun,
in
the
short
space
of
time
since
her
appointment,
to introduce
systems
which
will be
effective
in
driving
the
school
forward. (p.
24)
The
reader
will
be
able
to
judge
the validity
of
these
comments
in
the
light
of the
views
expressed
in
this
article.
DISCIPLINARY
PROCEDURES
top
The
School’s
policy on
staff discipline
is contained
in a
16-page document
entitled
Disciplinary
Procedures
and
Misconduct
of
Teachers
(Section
2.12, September
1997),
hereon
referred
to as
Disciplinary
Procedures
(Source:
Teacher
X).
According
to
the
Local
Education
Authority
(LEA)
the
procedures
need
to
be
applied
both
in
accordance
with
the
Instruments
and
Articles
of
Government
of
the
School,
as
well
as
the
Advisory,
Conciliation
and
Arbitration
Service’s
(ACAS’s)
Code of
Practice
No. 1, ‘Disciplinary practice and
procedures in employment’.
The LEA
is
mindful
of the
potential consequences
of failing
to apply
its disciplinary
policy
correctly:
If
a disciplinary
case should
lead ultimately
to dismissal
and a
claim for
unfair
dismissal
were
made to
an industrial
tribunal,
the
tribunal
would examine
the procedures
as well
as the
reasons
which
led to
the dismissal.
If
the
employer’s
stated procedures
are
not followed,
the claim
for unfair
dismissal
is likely
to be
upheld.
..........
[Also]
failure
to follow
the [ACAS]
Code of
Practice
makes
an
employer
liable
to
lose
a
case
at
an industrial
tribunal.
There
are
good
reasons for
both
employers
and employees
having disciplinary
rules
and
procedures
(Advisory,
Conciliation
and
Arbitration
Service,
2000). For
example,
they
facilitate
justice
by:
- promoting
fairness in the treatment of individuals
- setting
standards of conduct at work
- ensuring
the standards are adhered to
- providing
a fair method of dealing with alleged failures
to observe the
rules
In
order
to achieve these
objectives ACAS
have provided
a list of the essential
features
of disciplinary
procedures. These
cover such
matters as:
- the
need to address the issue of confidentiality,
- enabling
employees to be given the opportunity to state their
case before
decisions
are reached
- the
provision of the right of appeal and specification of
the procedure to be
followed
According
to ACAS, employers
should have regard for
the requirements of natural
justice,
and procedures
should not
be viewed
primarily as
a means
of imposing
sanctions,
but rather
as a
way of
helping and
encouraging improvement
where an
employee’s
conduct or
standard of
work is
unsatisfactory.
BREACHES
OF DISCIPLINARY
PROCEDURES
top
It
is legitimate
to ask
why non-compliance
with disciplinary
procedures should
be
regarded
as bullying
in this
particular case.
The answer
is to
be found
in the
totality
of
X’s
situation over
a number
of years.
By way
of just
two, out
of many
examples:
- she
was the target of the Head Teacher’s shouting
and intimidation, and was told
in no uncertain terms
that if she was unhappy she could look
for a
job elsewhere
- her
repeated requests for personal meetings were constantly
dismissed by Y who
would find ‘last
minute’ reasons
for not attending. However, the
Head still found time
to summon
X to
her office
whenever she
wished to
complain about
her
performance.
The
abuse of
disciplinary procedures
can, therefore,
be seen
as an
integral part of an
autocratic,
bullying style
of management.
Failures
to conform
to agreed,
laid-down procedures
will now
be examined
with
reference
to three
examples of
contraventions of
the School’s
Disciplinary
Procedures.
Example
1: Contravention
of Disciplinary Procedures Head Teacher’s
failure to preserve confidentiality
|
The
Disciplinary Procedures
clearly refer
to the
professional obligation
to maintain
confidentiality.
A
month before
the disciplinary
hearing the
Head Teacher
prepared a
memo for
X
which
detailed her
reservations
about
the way
she had
administered Key
Stage 1
Standardised
Assessment
Tests.
It also
contained her
view: “I
can only
conclude
that
there is
a prima
facie case
that you
are either
incompetent
or
that you
have been
wilfully
cheating.” (Source:
Teacher X)
This was
a defamatory
statement;
it represented
a
most
serious
accusation
against
X’s
integrity and
honesty, and
its
ramifications
were far
reaching. For
the Head
to make
her views
public served
to
confound
matters even
more.
Y’s
conduct in
this matter
was raised
at the
disciplinary
hearing.
The
disciplinary
committee’s
record of
the hearing
noted:
Head-teacher
acknowledged
the
importance
of
confidentiality ……….
..........
The
Head-teacher
responded
that after
further investigation
and speaking
to
[name
of an
LEA Co-ordinator]
she agreed
on [date]
to retract
this statement
and
offered
her
apologies
to
[X] which
was accepted.
(Source:
Teacher
X)
Contrary
to
the
Head’s
assertion, X
maintains that
at no
point did
she accept an
apology,
nor was she
offered an
apology. She
was denied
the opportunity
to
pursue the
matter further,
when an
LEA official
pronounced, writing
on behalf
of the
Chair of
the
Governing Body,
that the
appeal process
was to
be terminated
on grounds
which
X
considered
to
be arbitrary
and spurious.
Six
months after
this decision,
X decided
to express
her views
on Y’s
conduct by
writing
a formal
letter of
grievance:
My
grievance relates
to an
incident on
..........
when,
in front
of other members
of staff,
you said
directly
to
me: “I
can only
conclude that
there is
a
prima facie
case that
you are
either incompetent
or that
you have
been
wilfully
cheating”.
I
consider
such
action,
and
the way
in which
it was
carried
out,
to be
unprofessional
and
malicious.
I felt
bullied
and
humiliated
in
front
of
colleagues.
The
comments
were
damaging
to
my
good
name,
my
integrity and
my
reputation
..........
As
soon
as
you
had
uttered
these
words,
you
had
put
your reservations
as
to
my
competence
and
honesty
in
the
public
domain.
At
the
time,
and
ever
since,
I
have
found
that
what
you
said
to me
to
be extremely
distressing.
I
wish
to
put
on
record
the
fact
that
your
comments
have
been
a
significant
contributory
factor
in
determining
my
state
of
health.
(Source:
Teacher
X)
The
Chair
of
the
Governing
Body
decided
not
to
let the matter
go
further
as
part
of
a
formal
grievance
process,
and
there
is
no
evidence
of
any
action
having
been
taken
at
any
stage
against
Y
for
breaching
confidentiality.
Example
2: Contravention of Disciplinary Procedures Head
Teacher’s
membership of the Disciplinary Committee |
The
Disciplinary
Procedures
explicitly
state: “The
head teacher
shall not
be a
member
of any
disciplinary
committee
..........” This
important safeguard
prevents a
head
from acting
as investigator,
judge and
jury in
the same
case.
The
Disciplinary
Committee’s
own record
of the
meeting shows
that this
provision
was
ignored. An
ACAS Adviser
has stated
that the
record is
unequivocal;
the
only
conclusion
that can
be drawn
is the
Head had
been a
member of
the Committee.
Furthermore,
the Clerk
to the
Governing
Body
has confirmed
that
the
record
was
authorised
and
approved
by
the
Chair
of
the
Disciplinary
Committee
before
being
circulated.
It
was manifestly
a
breach
of
due
process
and
a
denial
of
natural
justice.
Not
only
was
it
proscribed
by
the
Disciplinary
Procedures,
but
Y’s
position
was
further
compromised
when,
by
involving
herself
in
the
gathering
of
evidence,
and
in
the
decision
to
proceed
with
the
hearing,
she
had publicly
expressed
her
doubts
over
X’s
competence
and
honesty.
Example
3: Contravention of Disciplinary Procedures Incorrect
implementation and termination of X’s suspension |
X
believed that
the manner
in which
she was
suspended
showed
contempt for
her
rights
and feelings.
On
the
same
day
that
the
Head
Teacher
read
out
a
memo
addressed
to X
in front
of
others
(see “Example 1”),
she also
issued a
letter to
X in
which she
wrote:
I
am now
requesting
you
to go
home on
paid leave
as I
need to
carry out
an
investigation.
I am
unable to
discuss
the
matter with
you further
until you
are
called
for interview
with
a
committee
of
the Governing
Body,
and
I will
let you
know
when
this
has
been
arranged.
In
the meantime,
you should
not attempt
to visit
the school
premises or
make
contact
with
other parties
involved
in
the matter.
(Source:
Teacher
X)
ACAS
has
confirmed
that
the
letter,
by
its
contents,
constitutes
a
notice
of
suspension.
Although
the
Head
is
pursuing
the
course
of
action
in
order
to
carry
out
an
investigation,
the
Disciplinary
Procedures
state
that
an investigation
should
precede
the
decision
to suspend,
except
in
the
case
of employees
suspected
of
gross
misconduct.
The
concept
of
gross
misconduct
is
dealt
with
at
some
length
in the
Disciplinary
Procedures,
and
it
would
be
perverse
to
argue
that
X’s
alleged
conduct
would fall
within
this
category
of
misconduct.
The
Disciplinary
Procedures
require
that, “The
employee along
with two
witnesses
(one
for the
head teacher
and one
for the
employee)
should
be informed
in person
of
the
decision
to
suspend
..........
and
written
confirmation
of
the
decision
shall
be
sent
immediately
afterwards.” It
would be
wrong, therefore,
to infer
that the
letter of
suspension
itself should
be read
out in
front of
witnesses, especially
as it
has to
contain
information
in
addition
to
the notification
of suspension
itself. As
already
indicated,
the issuing
of the
written
confirmation
only follows
after
the
employee
and
the
witnesses
have
been
advised
of
the
decision
to
suspend.
Notwithstanding
this, and
the
Disciplinary
Procedures
stated
need
for
confidentiality,
and
the
fact
that
“
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL” was clearly placed
at the head of the letter, the Head Teacher
made the contents
of the letter public.
This
must have been
a deliberate
decision on
Y’s
part because
she had
specifically requested
that witnesses
be
present to
hear what
she had
to say.
Moreover, it
follows from
the Head’s
conduct
that the
value of
statements presented
at the
hearing was
compromised in
that
the witnesses
may have
been influenced
by knowing
their Head
Teacher’s
low
opinion
of X.
The
way in
which the
suspension
was
lifted also
raises concerns,
as an “employee
must
not return
to school
..........
until
the governing
body’s
decision to
end the
suspension
is
communicated to
the
employee
in
writing.” As
X received
no writte
n correspondence
from the
Governing Body,
but was
initially advised
she could
return
by
Y in
a telephone
call,
she
questions
the
extent
to
which
the
LEA was
aware
of
her.© Keith
Munday 2003
14 situation,
and whether
or
not
another
aspect
of the
suspension
policy
was complied
with,
viz: “Any
such suspension
may be
ended only
by the
governing body,
which
shall
inform the
local education
authority
and
the head
teacher concerned
immediately.”
TECHNIQUES
EMPLOYED
BY
THE
BULLY
top
Based
on ‘the facts’ of
the case outlined so
far and the writer’s
many conversations
with
Teacher
X,
it is
possible to
postulate a
variety of
techniques employed
by the
Head
Teacher as
part of
her (ab)use
of the
Disciplinary
Procedures.
The
writer’s
views are
based on
assumptions which
may not
be shared
by everyone
-
and certainly
not Y,
whose comments
have not
been sought.
Nevertheless,
if
one
accepts
the Head
has bullied
X, or
accepts there
are grounds
for suspecting
that this
might
be the
case,
then
it is
legitimate
to
speculate
as
to what
these
techniques might
be.
Indeed,
the
identification
of malpractice
requires
suspicion
in the
first
instance
in
order
to initiate
and
then
guide
any
investigation.
The
credibility
of
such
speculation
can
be
judged,
not
only
with
reference
to
X’s
views on
her treatment,
but
equally
importantly,
with
reference
to
the documentation
in X’s
possession
which contains
statements
made
by the
Head Teacher,
the Chairman
of the
Governing
Body
and various
LEA officials,
indicating
their
thinking
and
reasoning
when
dealing
with
X.
For
the
purposes
of
this
article,
speculation
will
concentrate
on
two
techniques.
The
first
relates
to
the
control
of
information
which
was
exercised
in
such
a
way
so
as
to be
detrimental
to
the
interests
of X.
This
was
the case
when
the
Head
Teacher:
- denied
X the opportunity to check and, where appropriate,
challenge the accuracy
of records
of meetings;
- failed
to respond to legitimate questions regarding accountability
and the
suitability
of action
taken;
- refused
to supply documentation, even when there was a legal
obligation to do
so; and
- was
obstructive when asked to supply copies of school policy
documents.
An
illustration of
the Y’s
attitude is
demonstrated in
an extract
from a
letter written
to
Her
Majesty’s
Chief Inspector
of Schools,
Chris Woodhead:
……… . I have written to [Y], Head Teacher, requesting a number
of
documents,
viz the
school’s
latest Ofsted
inspection report,
the school
prospectus,
and copies
of the
school’s health & safety,
equal opportunities,
teacher
professional development & training,
and anti-bullying/
harassment policies
(or their
equivalents).
..........
The Head
Teacher has
responded by
stating: “I
will not
be supplying
you with
any of
the documents
or information that
you request.” ..........
I
should particularly
like to raise with
you the
issue of
[Y’s]
refusal
to
supply
me
with a
copy of
the school’s
latest
Ofsted
inspection
report.
..........
Two
of your
colleagues at
Alexandra
House
have advised
me on
the
telephone,
that inspection
reports are
in the
public
domain,
and refusal
to
provide
them is
contrary
to
a school’s
legal obligations.
..........
Not
only do
I find
[Y’s]
failure to
respond positively
to my
request as
unhelpful
and discourteous,
but I
also believe
it to
be prejudicial
to [X’s]
interests
at the
forthcoming appeal
hearing.
(Source:
Teacher X)
The
writer personally
asked Chris
Woodhead’s
successor, Mike
Tomlinson, about
head
teachers denying
access to
inspection
reports.
His response
was unequivocal:
“
They are breaking the law.” (Munday, 2001)
The
view that Y was uncooperative is reinforced when, nine
months later,
X again requested copies
of the policies on health
and safety, equal
opportunities,
and harassment.
Y wrote:
You
have written
to me
before requesting
Policy documents.
In providing
these
for you
I am
using valuable
time which
could be
better directed
to my main
aim which
is to
provide a
quality education
for all
the children
at [name
of
School].
..........
Could
you
please direct
any further
requests for
policies to
the
Personnel
Department of
the Local
Authority.
(Source:
Teacher X)
The
hint of
exasperation
indicates
Y’s
lack of
appreciation
of
the importance
of the issues
being raised
by X,
as well
as her
own responsibility
to supply
the information.
The
Head’s
actions raise
the obvious
question:
what
is the
point of
the School
having policies
if the
teaching
staff
cannot
gain
access
to
them?
X’s
reaction to
the letter
was to
write to
an official
in the
personnel section
mentioning
the
fact that
her previous
request for
policy documents
had been
met with
a blanket
refusal
on the
Head’s
part. She
then proceeded
to draw
attention to
a number
of
issues:
As
[Y] has
sent me
an incomplete
version of
the [name
of Local
Authority]
Equal
Opportunities
in
Employment
Policy
document,
I
would be
grateful
if
you
would
let
me have
a copy
of the
complete
document.
In
response
to
my
request
for
information
on health
and
safety,
[Y]
has
sent
me
a
single
sheet
entitled
Health
and
Safety
Policy
Statement
prepared
during
the
period
of
the
headship
of
her predecessor
..........
The
final
paragraph
states:
“A
comprehensive whole school policy is available in school.
One
copy
is kept
in the
main staff
room and
another one
is retained
by the
headteacher.
Staff should
make themselves
familiar with
the contents
of
this policy
and refer
to it
when necessary.”
I
have searched
for this
document in
the main
staff room,
on a
number of
occasions,
but
without
success. If
it is
in the
staff room,
then for
a document
of
its
importance
I would
suggest
it
is not
located
in
a sufficiently
prominent
position.
As I
wish
to
make
myself
familiar
with
the
contents
of the
policy,
I
would
be
grateful
if
you
would
advise
me on
how
I
might
be
able to
find
or gain
access
to
the
document.
(Source:
Teacher
X)
The
official
forwarded
a complete
copy of
the equal
opportunities
policy
to X,
and
went
on to
contradict
the
Head by
asserting: “School
policy documents
are entirely
a
matter
for the
school
and
therefore
I
suggest
you
ask the
school
secretary
where the document
you
seek
is filed.” No doubt X’s
determination
to
pursue this
matter, at
the same
time sharing
her correspondence
with the
Chairman of
the Governing
Body,
would
not have
endeared
her
to the
Head Teacher.
Certainly,
as
far as
X was
concerned,
she
detected
no improvement
in the
way
Y
continued
to
behave
towards
her.
An
outsider
would
have
been
intrigued
by
Y’s
conduct, bearing
in mind
how
much
time she
could have
saved herself
by supplying
the policies
in the
first place
-
assuming
they were
available.
The
second
technique,
relates
to
the exploitation
of ineffective ‘checks
and balances’.
The
term exploitation
implies
deliberate
intent, and
needs to
be used
with caution.
Even
assuming
there
had been
no deliberate
intent
on
Y’s
part, there
are still
grounds
for asserting
a failure
on the
part of
those responsible
for overseeing
the
management
and ethos
of the
School, to
undertake
their
duties with
due diligence.
This
failure,
whilst
not instigating
the bullying,
allowed
it
to take
hold and
flourish.
Either,
or both,
of these
explanations
seem(s)
feasible.
As
far
as
deliberate
exploitation
is
concerned,
is it
hard
to
believe
that
LEA
officers, and
the
members
and
Chair
of the
Governing
Body,
along
with
its
Clerk,
supposedly possessing
an understanding
of procedural
matters
and
wishing
to
undertake
their
duties
conscientiously,
could
have
allowed
such
significant
violations
of
process
to
happen
in
the
first
place,
and,
once
they had
occurred,
would
not
have
wished
to investigate
such
apparent
failures?
X
found
she
had
to
stay
permanently
on
guard
against
what
appeared
to
her
to be
a
constant
stream
of
insupportable
and
unwarranted
decisions,
and
she
was
the
one
who
ultimately
paid
the
price,
in
terms
of
the
debilitating
effects
upon
her
health,
morale,
and
performance
in
the
classroom.
The
opportunity
for
head
teachers
to
exploit
the situation
to
their
own advantage
has
been
identified
by
the
NASUWT
(1999)
in
its
presentation
of
evidence
on the
role
of
school
governors
to
the
House
of
Commons
Education
and
Employment
Committee. The
Union
maintains:
Governing
bodies have
responsibility
for
all personnel
matters.
The
inherent weakness
in the
system
is
that governors
lack the
necessary
expertise
to
deal
with
often
complex
employment
issues
..........
In
addition,
many
governors
view
their
role
simply
to
be
supportive
of
school
management.
Consequently, ……….
if a
disciplinary procedure
has
been instigated
by the
headteacher,
governors are
more inclined
to be
influenced
by
misplaced
loyalty
to the
manager
rather
than by
evaluation
of
the evidence
presented.
(page
7, paragraph
30)
Bearing
in
mind
the
lead
roles
of
chairs
and
local
education
officials
when
appointing
head
teachers,
it
would
seem
hardly
surprising
they
should
not
want
to
give
credence
to
the view
that
they
might
have
made
a
wrong
decision.
They
cannot
be
seen
to
be responsible
for
a
decision
which
reflects
badly
on themselves
and
the
reputation
of
the
school;
a
condemnation
of
one
is
in
effect
a condemnation
of them
all.
In
these
circumstances,
it
takes
considerable
courage
on
the
part
of
well-intentioned,
but
inexperienced
governors
to
seriously
probe
behind
the
actions
of
heads
which
cause
them
concern
-
a
situation
which
is
compounded
by
the
realisation
that
many
heads
insist
on
keeping
governors
uninformed
on
many
important
matters
(Thornton,
2002), and
the
knowledge
that
some
heads
and
chairs
of
governing
bodies
appear
to
be
in
collusion
with
each
other
when
it
comes
to preparing
agendas
and
dealing
with
procedural
issues
at
meetings
(Sallis,
2001).
CONCLUSIONS
top
The
case discussed
in this
article demonstrates
a complete
breakdown
in
the
psychological
contract,
and
it is
argued
that
the disregard
for official
policies
and
procedures,
in
spirit
and
in
letter,
is
indicative
of
a slide
into
a
culture
of
bullying
and
abuse.
It
is
the
attitudes
displayed,
the
decisions
taken,
and
the
actions
of
senior
managers
that
are
the
manifestations
of
an
organisation’s
true culture.
In many
respects
legal requirements
and policy
documents
say
very little,
in themselves,
about
a particular
institution.
On
the other
hand,
the
degree
to
which
the
relevant legislation
and
policies
are
adhered
to,
or
ignored,
can say
a
great
deal.
Teacher
competence is
not the
issue at
stake in
this context;
justice most
certainly is.
Greenberg
and Lind
(2000) have
stated that
in situations
dealing with
conflict
resolution
and complaints,
employees
are
much happier
with the
outcomes
-
even
when
they
are
undesirable
-
of
adjudicative
procedures
when
they
have
had
the
opportunity
to
present
their
evidence
and
voice
their
concerns.
Positive
perceptions
of
justice
and
fairness
are
also
enhanced
when they
are
treated
with
dignity
and respect.
It is
axiomatic
that
attempts
by
managers
to
deliberately
contravene
the
provisions
of
their
own
disciplinary
procedures,
especially
when
formulated
in
line with
the
ACAS
approach,
will
lead
to
a
denial
of
justice.
A
single
act
of
contravention,
when
based
on
ignorance,
and
which
is
capable
of
being
rectified,
may
seem
to
be
relatively
trivial
and
excusable.
A
number
of
contraventions
based
on
ignorance
constitutes
misuse
of
the
procedures.
They
indicate
managerial
incompetence,
and
may
lead
to
harmful
consequences,
albeit
unintentional.
Repeated
and
deliberate
contraventions,
on
the
other
hand,
warrant
total
condemnation.
Misuse
becomes
abuse
when
it
represents
integral
part
of
an
overall campaign
of
prejudice,
intimidation
and
harassment.
It
represents
the
actions
of
bullies,
who,
far
from
viewing
the
procedures
as a
means
of
protecting
rights
and
ensuring
justice,
cynically
see
the
abuse
of
the
procedures
as
a
crucial
weapon
in their
bullying
a
rmoury.
REFERENCES
top
Teacher
X
- X
gave permission
for the
writer
to
have access
to her
correspondence,
notes,
copies
of policy
documents,
disciplinary
papers,
etc.
for
the
purposes
of
this
assignment.
Adams,
A. (1992).
Bullying at
Work: How
to Confront
and Overcome
It, London:
Virago.
Advisory,
Conciliation
and
Arbitration
Service
(2000).
Draft
Code of
Practice
on
Disciplinary
and Grievance
Procedures,
Public
consultation
document,
Strategy
Directorate,
ACAS.
The
Andrea
Adams
Trust
(undated
-
obtained
by
the
writer
in
1997).
The
Andrea Adams
Trust
Factsheet
on
Workplace
Bullying.
ATL
(1996).
Bullying
at
Work:
A Guide
for
Teachers,
London:
Association
of
Teachers
and
Lecturers.
Ball,
S.J.
(1998).
Good
Management
Makes
Good
Schools?
What
are
We
Doing
to
Ourselves?,
Essay/notes
prepared
for
a
talk
given
to
a group
of
Head
Teachers, Chesterfield.
Bassey,
M.
(1999).
Case
Study
Research
in
Educational
Settings
,
Buckingham: Open
University
Press.
Blase,
J. & Blase,
J. (2003).
Breaking the
Silence: Overcoming
the Problem
of Principal
Mistreatment
of
Teachers,
Thousand
Oaks,
California:
Corwin
Press.
BRI
Inquiry
(2001).
Learning
from
Bristol:
The
Report of the
Public
Inquiry
into
Children’s
Heart Surgery
at the
Bristol Royal Infirmary
1984-1995,
CM
5207(1).
Brown,
M. & Ralph,
S. (1994).
Managing Stress
in Schools,
Plymouth:
Northcote House.
Einarsen,
S. (1998). ‘Norwegian
Research on Bullying
at Work’,
The International
Harassment
Network First
Annual Conference
on Harassment
and Bullying
in
the
Workplace, Proceedings
of the
First Annual
Conference held
at The
Oxford
Conference
Centre, Oxford,
on 13
and 14
May 1998,
pp. 1-8.
European
Agency
for
Safety
and
Health
at
Work (2002).
Bullying
at
Work,
Facts 23.
Field,
T. (1996).
Bully
In
Sight:
How
to Predict,
Resist,
Challenge
and
Combat Workplace
Bullying,
Wantage:
Success
Unlimited.
Field,
T. (1998). Those who can,
do. Those who can’t,
bully. UK
National
Workplace
Bullying Advice
Line. ‘Advice Line’ [online].
http://www.successunlimited.co.uk
[Accessed
19 February
1998].
Graves,
L. (2003). ‘The big fight’,
Personnel Today,
21 January,
pp. 18-20.
Greenberg,
J. & Lind, E.A. (2000). ‘The
pursuit of organizational
justice: from
conceptualization
to implications
to
application’.
In Cooper, C.L. & Locke,
E.A. (eds),
Industrial
and Organizational
Psychology: Linking
Theory with
Practice, Oxford:
Blackwell,
chapter 4.
Griffiths,
M. (1998).
Educational
Research
for Social
Justice:
Getting
Off the Fence,
Buckingham:
Open
University
Press.
Health & Safety
Executive (1997,
2 nd
impression
with amendments).
Stress
at
Work, HMSO.
Herriot,
P., Hirsh,
W. & Reilly,
P. (1998). Trust and Transition:
Managing Today’s
Employment
Relationship,
Chichester:
Wiley.
Hoel,
H. & Cooper,
C.L. (2000).
Destructive Conflict
and
Bullying at
Work,
Sponsored
by the British Occupational
Health Research
Foundation, Manchester
School
of Management,
UMIST.
Joseph,
R. (2000).
Stress
Free
Teaching:
A
Practical
Guide
to Tackling
Stress
in
Teaching,
Lecturing
and
Tutoring,
London:
Kogan
Page
Johnston,
R.
(2000). ‘Whose
side, whose
research, whose
learning, whose
outcomes? Ethics, emancipatory
research and
unemployment’.
In Simons,
H. &
Usher,
R. (eds.)
Situated Ethics
in Educational
Research,
London:
Routledge/
Falmer,
pp. 69-81.
Labour
Research
Department
(2001).
Bullying
and
Harassment
at Work – A
Trade
Unionist’s
Guide, London:
LRD Publications.
Morgan,
G. (1998).
Images of
Organization:
The
Executive Edition,
Thousand
Oaks,
California:
Sage.
Munday,
K. (1999). ‘Total
quality and the bullying
of lecturers’,
The International
Harassment
Network
Second
Annual
Conference
on
Harassment
and
Bullying
in
the Workplace,
Proceedings
of
the conference
held on
12 and
13 May
1999, pp.
50-58.
Munday,
K. (2001).
Note of
conversation
with
Mike Tomlinson
at Keele
University
on
30
March.
NASUWT
(1996).
No
Place
to
Hide: Confronting
Workplace
Bullies,
Birmingham:
NASUWT.
NASUWT
(1999). The
Role of
School Governors,
Evidence presented
by the
NASUWT to the
House of
Commons
Education
and Employment
Committee
Inquiry,
Rednal:
NASUWT.
OFSTED
Inspection
Report
(1998).
Relating
to
Teacher
X’s
School.
Randall,
P. (1997).
Adult Bullying:
Perpetrators
and
Victims, London:
Routledge.
Randall,
P. (2001).
Bullying
in
Adulthood:
Assessing
the Bullies
and Their
Victims,
Hove:
Brunner-Routledge.
Rayner,
C.,
Hoel,
H. & Cooper,
C.L. (2002).
Workplace Bullying:
What
We Know,
Who
is to
Blame, and
What Can
We Do?,
London: Taylor & Francis.
Sallis,
J. (2001). ‘Agenda’,
The Times
Educational
Supplement,
31
August, p.
24.
Stephen,
H. (1998). ‘Fighting back’,
Nursing Standard,
13(2), p.15.
Tehrani,
N. (ed.)(2001).
Building a
Culture of
Respect: Managing
Bullying at
Work,
London: Taylor & Francis.
Thornton,
K. (2002). ‘Kept
out of the loop’,
The Times
Educational Supplement,
13
September,
p. 32.
Trades
Union Congress
(1998). Bullied
at work?
Don’t
suffer in
silence. Your
guide
to tackling
workplace
bullying,
Leaflet issued
as part
of the
No excuse:
Beat
bullying
at work
campaign.
Travers,
C.J. & Cooper,
C.L. (1996).
Teachers Under
Pressure, London:
Routledge.
Webster,
P. (1990).
Your Stress
Management
in Teaching,
London: New
Education
Press.
West-Burnham,
J. (1997,
2 nd edition).
Managing
Quality
in Schools,
London:
Pitman.
White,
S.
(1999). ‘Bullying
at work – from
definition to preventative
action’,
The
International
Harassment
Network
Second
Annual
Conference
on
Harassment
and
Bullying
in
the
Workplace,
Proceedings
of
the
conference
held
on
12
and
13
May
1999,
pp.
27-32.
© Keith
Munday 2003
top
|
