Just Fight On!
Click me to go to the jfo homepage
Against workplace
bullying and abuse

Click here for our interactive forums and online support
Search Now:

Keep informed!
Join our mailing list
Your Email:
Subscribe to Bully News Now, the most comprehensive bullying and related news research service:


[more info]

Got a website?
Please link to jfo using our banner. For a reciprocal link, please email us
 
   

Are You New To Bullying?
Explaining Bullying/Work Abuse:
Your First Questions Answered Psychology of bullying Definitions
Quickhits: Work Health Support Legal Financial [in production]
Internet Use Advice/Resources: Trolls Latest Virus Alerts Free Downloads [anti-virus etc]

 

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