Last November, I published an anonymous guest post entitled The Bullying of Hannelore by a Professor of Astronomy, recounting the bullying of a member of administrative staff (referred to pseudonymously as Hannelore) in an Astronomy Department in the UK. That was subsequently followed by a post giving Hannelore’s own side of the story. This post, again from Hannelore herself, is an update showing that an already shocking story is getting worse as time goes on.
As before, all the names have been changed and the institution is not identified. Among other features of the response to the previous posts, it was remarkable how many people from different institutions inferred that they were about their own institution, which strongly suggests that bullying of the sort described is endemic in UK universities.
Update from Hannelore
Hannelore has been bullied by her Head of Department. The evidence is overwhelming. Those aware of it are shocked by the cruelty of her treatment. Meanwhile careful information management, also known as confidentiality, ensures the belief is upheld that “there is another side to the story” while the full story is never told.
Before being set upon Hannelore was a popular member of her department, known for reliability and competence, and for going above and beyond to support others.
A helpful HR person proposed that she summarise her concerns about the director’s behaviour informally, in writing. Since Hannelore was afraid of raising a grievance of her own, they were included into someone else’s – which was itself investigated under the wrong policy. The helpful HR person had been busy setting up an independent investigation, i.e. one in which she herself became a witness while discussing with others the potential application of a forthcoming investigation report.
The report was duly delivered. There was no substance to Hannelore’s concerns, but instead of malice, it was the strength of her perceptions and the veracity of her feelings which were cited as their cause. Hannelore could not now be punished for unfounded allegations, at least not in accordance with the University’s Dignity at Work policy.
But the director saw it differently, proposing a catalogue of retaliatory measures, associated instead with the veracity of Hannelore’s feelings – another word for her mental health. There was now evidence, in a report, which the director delighted in sharing with others, that the formerly trustworthy Hannelore was in fact a risk to others, as well as to herself.
A redundancy notice swiftly followed. There was no bandwidth in the department to address the issues identified in the report. The director spoke of “zeroing out” the grant funding her, while the helpful HR person mused that Hannelore’s role surely would be taken over by another institution…
The whistle was blown at the abuse. Appalled colleagues intervened, where HR and senior management had failed. A protected disclosure was made, on the grounds of health and safety. Within hours of Hannelore’s funding finally signed off, the three senior professors who had assisted her became the victims of a string of vicious allegations, 18 of them in total, all made by the director and ranging from falsifying documentation to misusing Hannelore’s distress as a means of alleging inappropriate behaviour on his part.
The 18 allegations were taken most seriously. Not entertaining the possibility of error or even exaggeration, the helpful HR person suggested immediate escalation to a formal investigation.
A year-long process, conducted by an expensive barrister, enabled the director to finish his term, but failed to extract a single shred of evidence to substantiate any of his 18 extremely serious claims. In the meantime, Hannelore’s colleagues remained accused, potential bullies waiting to be cleared of fictitious wrongdoing.
In tandem, the same investigator had also examined the bullying of Hannelore. Here, there was no shortage of evidence. It was all the more unfortunate, therefore that the terms of reference, drawn up by the helpful HR person, didn’t quite capture the substance of the investigation conclusions: It was not Hannelore who had been viciously bullied, but her colleague, a senior professor coerced by the director into giving up most of his grants, to one of the director’s friends, including eventually the one funding Hannelore. Ignominious behaviour was indeed reported and evidenced. The damage done to Hannelore was recognized – but only as collateral damage. So, there would be no case to answer, the “responsible” person concluded in carefully drafted words.
As to the 18 grotesque allegations which were made against Hannelore’s colleagues, some identified by a High Court judge as properly defamatory, they were minimized, summarized, and repackaged into another set of aptly drafted terms of reference, to form the premise to the investigation conclusion.
In somewhat patchy English it was communicated to Hannelore’s colleagues that the lack of substance in the 18 very serious allegations was unfortunate, and that consequently the allegations, at least those which were investigated, would not be upheld. A surely most fortunate conclusion, given the gravity of the alleged conduct.
As to disciplining the accuser, a little more wordsmithing had seen to that, at the expense of common sense: the concept of malicious, as defined by the Dignity at Work policy – unfortunately – did not allow for it to be matched to the making of unfounded allegations of a very serious nature… Not even an apology would be required.
More outcome letters were signed and sent by senior management, adding insult to the injury already suffered by their former colleagues and fellow academics – with HR looking on, ready to assist with more helpful process, more helpful advice, and more helpful drafts, to manage the undignified environment they contribute to create.
And so, the artifices of process and policy, used and abused in a court-inspired pantomime turn an academic institution into a theatre of the absurd. Helpfully drafted conclusions, which are no longer their own, enable its most senior people to be “responsible” without accountability for the judgement they make, and to argue unashamedly that the implausible is indeed plausible, the indefensible defensible, and the institution’s values a thing of the past.
In the Dark 