Vice Chancellors, Pro-Vice Chancellors and Registrars make lots of money. Universities justify their huge salaries as needed to “attract top executive talent“.
The median Vice Chancellor pay of the Russell Group for 2023-2024 is £400,000, as reported by the Times Higher Education Supplement.
“The largest individual total remuneration went to Deborah Prentice at the University of Cambridge. Her remuneration package of £577,000 for her first full year as vice-chancellor included a base salary of £409,000, along with £42,486 in relation to relocation expenses, £29,177 in accommodation, utilities and property taxes, and personal travel costs of £22,564″. [From Times Higher Education Supplement]
In addition to their pay, Vice Chancellors normally get lavish ‘grace and favour’ accommodation. For example, in the case of Cambridge University, the Vice Chancellor occupies a £4.5 million lodge. The university covers all cost of utilities, council tax, maintenance, and pension contributions for the accommodation.
In principle, there is nothing wrong with offering high pay to attract very gifted individuals.
Paula Vennells was on a salary of £619,000 to run the Post Office. If she had possessed the acuity to diagnose the problems of the Post Office and fix them she would have been well worth the money. Instead she had little ability or insight. Rather than “top executive talent”, she was very dim. The costs of her disastrous tenure at the helm of the Post Office are now expected to exceed £1 billion.
Of course, it is not just Vice Chancellors. Many other members of the senior management team, such as Registrars, pro Vice Chancellors, Chief Finance Officers and HR Directors, are on very substantial salaries.
Numbers & costs of actual professors have stayed pretty much the same over last 5 years. However, the “professionalisation” of universities has resulted in bloated & unaccountable administration overheads. In numbers & costs, these are now a big cause of the operating deficits reported by many universities & hence the crisis in UK Higher Education.
For example, the top 12 senior managers at Cardiff University collectively ‘earned’ £2.5 million in 2023. Below the top 12 will be many tens of administrators earning > £100k. This all adds up to a significant portion of the operating deficit which is being used to cut 400 academic jobs. as announced this week
Are university senior managers worth it? Given the way these ‘talented’ people are running UK universities, it looks like a serious case of Vennells Derangement Syndrome. Many are dim and almost all have goofed up.
However, there is another problem with huge Vice Chancellor pay, which is special to Universities.
“Universities were the darlings of the left .. ‘They’re hopeless’, one Labour insider said before the election. In eyes of many, they lost the plot on excessive vice chancellor pay & perks, .. “ [From Anthony Seldon, himself a former Vice Chancellor]
The problem with high Vice Chancellor pay is optics.
Optics matters in politics. Stories about lavish pay, pricey air travel & 5 star hotels feed a narrative of waste and profligacy. UK Universities are not in the public sector, but they rely on public money for research and teaching.
Let us remember the nearest Tony Blair came to Parliamentary defeat was not over the Iraq War. It was over tuition fees. The 2004 Parliamentary vote which hiked tuition fees to £3,000 per year was won by just 5 votes. Subsequently, the Liberal Democratic Party committed electoral suicide in another unpopular tuition fee rise to £9,000. Tuition fee increases are disliked by the electorate.
So, no politician is going to take an electoral beating for wealthy Vice Chancellors & their entourages, many of whom are on salaries two or three times greater than that of the Prime Minister. It was absolutely no surprise that the Budget failed to deliver any substantial tuition fee rise at all.
What our elected MPs should be doing is holding university leadership to account. University Vice Chancellors should be hauled before a Parliamentary Select Committee. Let them answer to MPs about their management of the sector. Let them justify their massive wages to MPs. Let them explain the scandals over bullying and financial mismanagement.
The crisis in UK Higher Education still has a long way to go. It’s rising to a crescendo in 2026. And the 21 Group expects some of our University Vice Chancellors will have to appear before Parliament for a grilling by then.
So, probably best not to be too conspicuous in the VC pay tables … or involved in several huge cover-ups.
189 Comments
Anon · 2 February 2025 at 10:04
“Let them answer to MPs about their management of the sector. Let them justify their massive wages to MPs. Let them explain the scandals over bullying and financial mismanagement.”
♫ When I look back upon my life
It’s always with a sense of shame
I’ve always been the one to blame
For everything I long to do
No matter when or where or who
Has one thing in common too…♫ ♫
Catbert · 5 February 2025 at 06:53
It is worse than you think because as a U.S. citizen, you get a foreign tax credit to offset against future tax bills.
I think for a UK national the equivalent net benefit would require a salary closer to £700,000.
Elias · 2 February 2025 at 10:08
Made this point already in a previous thread (the HR one), but anyway, in my view the key problem was not salary but actually doing the f***ing job for which they were paid.
University VCs act like it is a part time sinecure. We need someone who is a real manager and leader.
21percent.org · 2 February 2025 at 10:29
100 %
If you want a big salary, it comes with a responsibility to lead & deliver
Anonymous · 2 February 2025 at 14:52
The problem is systemic and embedded. To HR, VCs, and HODs, they presumably believe they are ‘doing their jobs’ just fine, thanks. That’s probably why VCs get so defensive when questioned and surround themselves with vicious HR goons.
Long ago, with the creeping corporatization of the sector, psychopathy became a trait consciously or unconsciously (one hopes…) selected for leadership positions. And with it came ‘leaders’ with the accountability and foresight of Bernie Madoff and the salaries of foreign heads of state.
Eileen Nugent · 15 February 2025 at 10:37
Been going on for more than a decade, putting people through significant unnecessary work-related stress – employment tribunals the university already knew were lost before it showed up in court – under multiple VCs, not remedying anything under multiple VCs. The people systems need to be ripped out of the whole organisation and rebuilt from scratch so that the organisation stops routinely generating the same types of cases and develops people processes that are capable of remedying any case it does generate.
Eileen Nugent · 15 February 2025 at 10:45
An organisation will never get the best out of people if there are lots of processes running that put people through lots of unnecessary stress and suffering. Crap contract management inducing employment contract torture, slow and inefficient remedy processes, grievance escalation routes that lead to the metaphorical equivalent of a HR triggered grievance anaphylaxis for the people using them.
Eileen Nugent · 15 February 2025 at 10:52
Routine abuse legal remedy processes in cases where a HR triggered grievance anaphylaxis is already well under way.
Eileen Nugent · 15 February 2025 at 11:00
An organisation can jack up the pay of its VC to higher and higher salaries, it can go searching further and further around the globe for a new VC to turn an organisation that is evolving to greater and greater states of failure around. If people system dynamics like those are just left to remain in play, if the people systems are not gutted and rebuilt, the jacking up of pay and the searching further and further away for a new VC will have no impact on the probability of organisational failure. The problem is embedded in the organisation and the solution is therefore also embedded in the organisation itself. Get the people systems ripped out and rebuilt.
Eileen Nugent · 15 February 2025 at 11:06
Criticise with accuracy, complain long and complain hard, be relentless in complaining about the people systems. Get the people systems ripped out of the organisation. Pave the way for them to be rebuilt. No more vomiting more new HR policies on everyone and not doing any actual HR.
Eileen Nugent · 15 February 2025 at 11:10
I have left the organisation so it won’t impact my future but I will play my part in getting these people systems ripped out so that the organisation has a clear run at rebuilding them to build an organisation that is genuinely stronger and better for everyone, everyone left in the organisation whose future it will impact can then rebuild them from scratch.
Eileen Nugent · 15 February 2025 at 11:18
Rise up, rebel, get these people processes ripped out of the organisation once and for all, get all the national regulators in, get the people processes ripped out and get the path cleared for a stronger university to be built, put a stop to all that unsafe HR-Legal-grievance anaphylaxis.
Eileen Nugent · 15 February 2025 at 11:21
No payoffs, no NDAs, no junk employment tribunals, can shove that junk academic career up their organisational blackhole.
Eileen Nugent · 15 February 2025 at 12:03
Resilience courses, let them piss all their mental resources up the wall. Get the national regulators in and get that organisational work-related stress pressure release valve installed to make the whole organisation more resilient in times of additional stress – brexit, pandemic – and reduce the risk of a significant health impact on staff in times of significant organisational uncertainty and stress. Get the people processes ripped out, liberate yourselves, and get new processes built that can handle serious cases of work-related stress in a safe manner installed. Question everything, document everything, get the national regulators in and get these people processes ripped out before they do anymore damage. Get them out before they damage more people, devalue more degrees, before they cause unnecessary suffering to any more students like the vets.
Eileen Nugent · 15 February 2025 at 12:16
I have left now, far too painful to go back, but I will support people still in the organisation to get these people processes ripped out to pave the way for them to be rebuilt to strengthen the organisation and make it safer. I won’t put up with being treated in an inhuman and degrading way by any failing organisation. I will be relentless until the job of getting them ripped out is done. I won’t stop until these people processes that are actively harming people are ripped out of the whole organisation. I will contact every national regulator going that could play any part in getting them ripped out and ask them to make a contribution to getting these people processes that are embedded in the whole organisation ripped out and rebuilt.
Eileen Nugent · 15 February 2025 at 12:23
Start making a fuss, start kicking up a stir, start getting the union in, go for the processes, criticise any problems with the processes, get an accurate picture of the current work-related stress regulation capability of the whole organisation. Get these processes ripped out before they do any more harm, get that work-related stress pressure release valve installed. No more being a slave to HR-Legal, no more HR-Legal grievance anaphylaxis. Rebel, get it ripped out.
CamPhoraceous · 15 February 2025 at 17:09
“I have left the organisation so it won’t impact my future but I will play my part in getting these people systems ripped out so that the organisation has a clear run at rebuilding them”
This is the part I don’t understand. HR and Legal think, the way to fix every situation is to bully someone out of their job. They don’t seem to realise that at that point we can finally tell our stories to the world.
We have lost so many dedicated staff like yourself who so very easily could have been part of the solution. People prepared to dedicate their spare hours to fixing the university and making it great again in concrete, practical steps, instead of being exiled to a discussion forum like this one.
And that is a level of energy, commitment and passion that is entirely absent from the 9-5 (though more like 11-3, Tu-Th) senior “administrators” hired to be nominally “in charge” .
Lenu · 2 February 2025 at 10:49
We have a VC who behaves as if she were appointed US Ambassador, rather than paid millions to turn around a failing organisation.
Factcheck · 2 February 2025 at 11:15
The American Ambassador does not get a fraction of the pay of the Cambridge VC for what is probably a much more difficult and frankly more important role.
Anonymous · 2 February 2025 at 15:14
The problem is how market-driven these positions have become as well being beyond any oversight of governance. A VC should, frankly, be a bridge between academic leadership and civil service, NOT a corporate executive.
confused · 2 February 2025 at 16:15
How is it possible that a university with some of the lowest salaries in the country for lecturers and professors also has the highest salary for the VC?
Anonymous · 2 February 2025 at 22:28
Sadly, both possible and the norm.
Judge · 2 February 2025 at 11:04
Alas I have reached this same conclusion. We needed a Satya Nadella, but they sent over Steve Ballmer.
Juvenal · 2 February 2025 at 11:07
Why would a university with large medical & business schools & complex relationship to manage with UK Government over tuition fees appoint as a VC, someone from a dinky private university 3500 miles away with no medical school, no business school & no background or experience in handling Government relations?
It’s as if the people who really run the university just wanted a patsy to look graceful in their YouTube videos
Judge · 2 February 2025 at 11:29
Not to bombard with comments but:
Also more salient issue of relevant management experience.
Cambridge needs someone who already has delivered radical structural reform to a university in crisis.
We did the total opposite.
Next time the right person = either 1 someone, most likely, already in charge of a successful rising university lower in the rankings and familiar with Cambridge specificities, or 2 an adjacent sector but with exceptional managerial skills and discipline and willingness to learn and ability to bring in top quality higher ed advisers to their A team.
Diddly · 2 February 2025 at 13:08
the good thing about youtube is that when it is too quiet to hear, you can always just… turn up the volume
Anonymous · 2 February 2025 at 15:23
Does anyone actually watch their YouTube or Instagram videos?
It’s just box ticking and going through the motions. These are zombie institutions.
TigerWhoCametoET · 2 February 2025 at 15:30
How many views do they have could you post some examples?
Anonymous · 2 February 2025 at 15:48
Tiger, anecdotally, I couldn’t cite examples, but it’s usually in the low hundreds of views and mostly alumni, cliquey, and with little meaningful engagement. As Juvenal said, in the Oxbridges it’s usually heavily moderated and propaganda-like.
TigerWhoCametoET · 2 February 2025 at 16:03
Hyporhetically if a video costs 20 thousand to make and has 200 views, that means 100 pounds per viewer? Then they could have sent someone to meet each person individually?
Juvenal · 2 February 2025 at 15:37
True. Any adverse comment on the Cambridge University youtube channel does not appear. It is moderated. You can only upvote the video. You can’t even downvote
Posters on yammer making negative comments were banned
In fact, you can’t even express any negative comment publicly on any university website. There is relentless positivity and ‘good news’ as the university slowly sinks.
TigerWhoCametoET · 2 February 2025 at 15:41
Just wondering how many views they have (given the cost to produce each, someone could figure out the cost per viewer)
Anonymous · 2 February 2025 at 15:55
It would be interesting, but let’s be honest—it’s obvious that the cost to produce these videos and PR isn’t proportional for institutions and doesn’t reflect the reality of places that are the living dead. Romero’s budget was $114,000 and he did a great job.
mushroom blue · 2 February 2025 at 21:34
just took a look at their official videos and feel physically unwell knowing the abuse some of us have faced at the university. then seeing them talk about mental health and staff wellbeing with comments disabled and no means at all to voice or call out such lies. it is sickening.
Anon · 2 February 2025 at 22:51
I feel your pain.
Juvenal · 2 February 2025 at 23:23
In one of the official videos called ‘Introducing Dignity at Work’, the principal abusers are all present, spouting lies.
Their actions are the complete reverse of what they say in the video
A university is led from the top. The top of Cambridge University is riddled with deceit and corruption
It is sick-making.
blue, blue, electric blue · 3 February 2025 at 10:50
Could you share a link to the Dignity at Work video? I searched on youtube but could not find it.
21percent.org · 3 February 2025 at 11:00
Here you go
https://youtu.be/pizOGdQK4tE
Anon · 3 February 2025 at 11:53
♫At school they taught me how to be
So pure in thought and word and deed
They didn’t quite succeed
For everything I long to do
No matter when or where or who
Has one thing in common too…♫ ♫
Natillas · 2 February 2025 at 22:16
Exactly. They have shut down every possible avenue for people to connect, voice opinions, express critical feedback.
This comment section is the only place where we can simply tell it as it is.
Casadiella · 3 February 2025 at 04:24
Still the comment section. They want silence but they can’t get it.
Oskar M · 3 February 2025 at 14:07
I was wondering what seemed off about that dignity video and then it struck me.
When they are talking about the need to ensure polite and appropriate behaviour, it is like they are thinking in terms of protecting themselves from any form criticism from underlings.
But they are not engaging at all with the real issues facing staff.
Issues like harassment, petty undermining, gaslighting, obstruction, victimising workloads, not to mention the more systematic forms of institutionalised harassment like deliberately vexatious legal threats against whistleblowers, poison pill letters, removal of funding, or explicit orders not to meet with victims or hear their complaints, even when they concern matters of grave risk.
Perhaps though they are thinking about all those things while they talk, and that is why they seem so awkward as they are aware of the hypocrisy involved.
angrybarbie · 3 February 2025 at 10:32
No shit they are zombies they all look so tired and unenthusiastic :-((
It is like as soon as the video stops they each sigh “well I’ve done what you asked and thank god that’s now over”
River2C · 3 February 2025 at 12:16
I don’t know why but that dignity at work one feels very creepy. The woman who appears third in that video has something of the night about her.
NaturalArts · 3 February 2025 at 18:09
I would love to see someone do a body language analysis on this Dignity at Work video, because the first four speakers are so uncomfortable.
For example you can notice that when that third woman says “resolve disputes fairly and as quickly as possible” she then does a slight frown, pause and swallow. Like she knows that what she has said is not true.
Meanwhile the first guy exhibits odd microexpressions of anger when he is talking about creating a “safe and inclusive community,” which just seems odd and seems to require contextual explanation.
Finally the fourth speaker (from physical sciences) is weirdly uncomfortable – shifting from side to side with hands behind his back, which signifies some kind of unease with what he is saying.
What makes all of this curious is the fact that the content of what they are saying is so uncontroversial. So there is something about the context making them deeply, deeply unsettled.
Mark · 3 February 2025 at 18:42
thanks just forwarded this so fine my take
Speaker 1 – anger. Could be anger about bullying, or anger about having to respond to bullying… who knows
Speaker 2 – not much I could read
Speaker 3 – superficially emotionless but I also detect evident sadness (wet eyes) together with guilt at what she is saying (glottal stop)?
Speaker 4 – deception. Not only the shifting body tilt and defensive arm hold, but also the fixed raised eyebrow gesture too is classic for someone trying to sell you on something they don’t believe in
Speakers 5 & 6 seemed normal enough. 5 was a bit scripted but 6 actually managed some empathetic facial expressions. Does highlight how weird the others were (that came so late in video)
Good luck fellas M
DestroyingAngel · 3 February 2025 at 19:26
Speakers 3 and 4 are playing a major role in a forthcoming Employment Tribunal about a major bulling scandal in Cambridge department
No wonder they look shifty & guilty. They have a lot to be shifty and guilty about.
Well diagnosed.
(Suspect video may be pulled soon)
Quick Take · 3 February 2025 at 20:05
Doesn’t matter if they pull the video as you can recover a cached version
Without knowing anything else about the context would say that: speaker 1 potential ally, speaker 3 a wildcard (emotionally conflicted/damaged but going through the motions) while speaker 4 obviously deep in the shit
You can use body language evidence in court by calling in experts but if they are going to be on the stand you will get far better evidence under cross examination in a way judges or juries can interpret for themselves
FreeAdvice · 3 February 2025 at 22:01
Also other key marker for Speaker 4 is around mouth. Notice constrained smile muscles and glaring of teeth. Showing teeth in this way is core body language marker for pain – which, in the absence of physiological pain – implies speaker is feeling “pained” by own words.
Anon · 4 February 2025 at 05:24
Speaker number 3 does not gesticulate or distract. She tells us unemotionally what happens “when things go wrong”:
“When things do go wrong, it is important that WE resolve disputes fairly and as quickly as possible.
The University’s grievance processes provide different ways to do this.
These include informal approaches to stop inappropriate behaviour early and prevent it escalating.
BUT
some situations may only be resolved through a formal grievance or disciplinary process.”
Escalation is key (to match “escalating” inappropriate behaviour): a formal grievance or disciplinary process enables US to decide what is fair and what timescales are possible.
So, you have it here, in broad daylight and with chilling sincerity: that is how “Dignity at Work” is operated.
Psych2u · 4 February 2025 at 14:29
Woman (speaker three) exhibits more of a “dissociation” pattern would say (neutral tone, absence of movement). A common stress response, not concerning, except insofar as may indicate unresolved life concerns. Hard to say from a short clip like this whether the trigger relates to video and/or how much sits within baseline.
Gobblycat · 3 February 2025 at 11:54
OMG these videos are so cringe it hurts! The christmas message is golden can’t believe no-one yet has done a parody mix
Satti · 3 February 2025 at 14:30
Why is she delivering a “Christmas message”? She’s not the bloody queen.
JohnBull · 3 February 2025 at 16:03
I think yanks watch too many episodes of The Crown so come here thinking the British tradition is to shower our leaders with deference and revelry
Of course if they spoke with royals they would know the real British tradition is to grumble + take the piss + engage in ritual media crucifixion
Shifu · 5 February 2025 at 14:57
Seem like she is acting out some kind of schoolgirl fantasy about one day coming to England and living as Hermione Granger
21percent.org · 5 February 2025 at 15:21
In a thread with many luminous gems, that stands out as the Koh-I-Noor diamond.
Just brilliant
Tigermum · 5 February 2025 at 16:54
“the real British tradition is to grumble + take the piss + engage in ritual media crucifixion”
It is very clearly specified in our unwritten constitution
yukhi1996 · 5 February 2025 at 17:13
only if hermione got million pound hogwarts scholarship from british government tho
Katniss · 7 February 2025 at 12:37
I just watched the “Christmas message” from last year
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g41QiU428vM
You can see she deliberately copied the format of the Queen’s Christmas messages e.g. opening with choral music and an image of the building.
That already is so utterly tasteless and disrespectful to our country and institutions. But if that were not enough she ends “my family and I send you our very best wishes” as if in her head she really is speaking for the royal family. Its a truly messed up form of fantasy fulfillment.
invinciblegreen · 7 February 2025 at 15:31
Embarrassing. At least Meghan married a prince!
Judge · 2 February 2025 at 11:18
IMO this situation = good example of executive pay paradox
1. Worth paying huge sums for high quality exec
However
2. Large pay offers rarely secure the best people
Kavita · 2 February 2025 at 12:31
I’m sorry but how did they get to a figure of £42,486 for “relocation expenses”?
That is an astonishing sum – could we request the full itemization for this?
De = t_c / t_p · 8 February 2025 at 23:24
It takes a big number like that to move solids over oceans…
and perhaps a lot of money to move the contents of a royal palace?
Weissenberg · 9 February 2025 at 09:53
Any lower figure and the Queen would have a meltdown
Immaterial · 11 February 2025 at 08:16
Good one 🙂 Just a shame none of the idiots in charge around here are educated or smart enough to understand the joke…
21percent.org · 11 February 2025 at 08:31
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_number
😉
Peeved · 11 February 2025 at 08:47
spoilsport
we demand the right to make jokes that only the four people in our lab plus our dog will understand without looking it up
Juvenal · 2 February 2025 at 13:10
And what are “personal travel costs”? This does not seem to be money spent on university business which would be expenses.
Kavita · 2 February 2025 at 13:17
Oh wow fantastic spot yes that is right. Work-related expenses would not be taxable as income.
So this means the university paid for a personal vacation?
Susan · 2 February 2025 at 13:29
If someone asks Paddy Jack at Times Higher Ed (link in the post) he may either know or dig further.
Nabludatel · 2 February 2025 at 13:58
Even if it were Christmas/NY travel home to the USA, I would still be confused as a First Class return flight from London to New York can be had for 8000 or less. A sum of 22,564 raises a lot of questions.
Poindexterity · 3 February 2025 at 09:51
But in that case, the employer should not be paying at all.
Say it was originally snuck in as a travel expense but later flagged by accountants/tax authority as personal. Then it would be bizarre to later “add” it to income — rather than simply remove it.
After all, it is hardly like the base package were insufficient to cover personal vacation.
Astragous · 3 February 2025 at 10:17
It also reinforces that earlier point about treating the job like a diplomatic posting. Diplomats can expense return to HQ during one holiday, and maybe some hardship leave if they were in a place like Haiti or Sudan. But there’s no equivalent for a university VC so it just makes no sense.
Qwerty · 8 February 2025 at 21:43
£22,564 for a personal trip…
… Private jet? First class cruise?
Whatever it was, it was “fit for a Queen”…
Gilbert · 3 February 2025 at 02:38
MyHR (Catastrophe University’s flagship HR software project) has just been postponed for around two to three years. It’s the brainchild of the HR Supremo.
Postponed because it needs to be compatible with existing software (a foreseeable problem, no?)
Delays will cost Catastrophe University another roughly 10 million pounds.
Anonymous · 3 February 2025 at 04:39
£10 million pounds—ouch ! Bleeding out that kind of money can’t be good for a university, over such an obvious problem too.
Small Beer · 3 February 2025 at 08:39
“Computer says no”
Pavel · 3 February 2025 at 08:43
Have they tried switching it off and then turning it back on again
Anonymous · 4 February 2025 at 21:16
Perhaps a full system reboot of HR itself, along with the immediate removal of corrupt files and malware, is in order?
Anon · 4 February 2025 at 07:04
Following on from myHR… myCareer!
“The University is working on a career development framework for professional services staff to support their professional development and progression, known as myCareer. Information on the project can be found on the myCareer SharePoint site, which includes a video from the Registrary, Emma Rampton, and details of the key areas of activity. The site will be updated regularly as the project develops. You can ‘follow’ the site to be notified about updates by clicking on the star in the top right-hand corner.”
“Introduction to myCareer
Welcome to the myCareer SharePoint site. This platform is designed to keep you informed and engaged with the ongoing project, a key initiative aimed at enhancing career development opportunities for our professional services colleagues at the University of Cambridge.”
Anonymous · 4 February 2025 at 21:30
How much did Cambridge waste on it, do you know?
Is it as bad as the phenomenal £10 million failure of an HR department at a certain university that is imploding?
Sickofitall · 9 February 2025 at 19:50
£10 million for a career platform? What’s the point?
For £10 flat we could have an answering machine message telling prospective applicants to fuck off and find themselves a better job elsewhere.
Think of all the time it would save us in review meetings or making up BS comments to justify outcomes that were predetermined anyway.
Gilbert · 3 February 2025 at 08:51
As I am sure you know, the first rule of university management is relentless and uncritical positivity about their own work
“I know this will be disappointing news for many of you, as we will have to wait longer than expected to reap the wonderful benefits of the new HR system. However, this work to modernise our technology environment will soon usher in a new era and deliver many long-term benefits for the University and will make it easier to introduce other new systems in future. All of your feedback has been listened to and will be used to inform the implementation of the new HR system at the appropriate time.”
Anonymous · 3 February 2025 at 12:46
It vill not be difficult, Mein Vice-Chancellor!… It vill easily be accomplished with a computerized HR surveillance system. Vith ze proper software und funding, staff and students could be tracked, complaints ignored und claimants… neutralized ja!
All jests aside, it’s no laughing matter when an HR department is being run by Dr. Strangelove & Co. Especially during a cost-of-living crisis when it wastes colossal sums of public taxpayer money in abusing staff and students, breaking national and international laws, and driving a university to the brink of destruction.
Mz · 3 February 2025 at 12:48
That message was so funny. As if people were waiting excitedly all week to “reap the benefits” of a silly IT platform shift (and now our day is ruined…)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Anonymous · 3 February 2025 at 22:03
Glad the gallows humor hits home. Clearly, any university or department administration hemorrhaging that kind of money is already among the walking dead.
The hope of all of us is that, in the aftermath, a genuine reform can take place that not only tackles financial mismanagement (and crime) but also looks after staff and students. Universities deserve much better.
Anon · 3 February 2025 at 13:20
Inflated VC and senior management salaries are not the only unnecessary drain on University resources. Here is a notable example:
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/uni-spends-7k-a-month-on-empty-bar-while-laying-off-staff-319514/
I’m sure there are many other examples across the sector.
Anonymous · 4 February 2025 at 21:21
Perhaps the VC, senior management, and senior academics should reopen it; they’ll need a stiff drink with what is coming their way.
Anon · 5 February 2025 at 13:00
Indeed, victims are being left with no choice but to raise Employment Tribunal cases, and there will be many. The full extent of what has been going on should be fully exposed.
Anonymous · 5 February 2025 at 13:10
And may they win those tribunals, and the criminal financial mismanagement and egregious abuse of staff and students by what passes as “leadership” of universities be exposed.
N.O. · 5 February 2025 at 15:28
Sorry but NO tribunal is not the answer
Victims miss the deadline to file because they were a) spun out with bullshit from their head and HR and/or b) too traumatized to react in time
Those who do file in time then have to face 2 or 3 year delay to have their day in court and if they win sign a silencing agreement that prevents them warning future victims
The universities continues the abuse and NOTHING changes
That is why this is the solution identifying the COMMON actors in HR to Legal to the external solicitors whose names crop up again and again in complaints of abusive and vexatious conduct
And finally once and for all justice will be PUBLIC and PERMANENT and there will be NO negotiation NO settlements and NO forgiveness
21percent.org · 5 February 2025 at 16:03
Some very good points here
Victims miss the deadline to file because they were a) spun out with bullshit from their head and HR and/or b) too traumatized to react in time
The deadlines for starting cases with ETs are often just 3 months. It is true that universities delay & delay, so victims often miss Tribunal deadlines.
Those who do file in time then have to face 2 or 3 year delay to have their day in court and if they win sign a silencing agreement that prevents them warning future victims
The current delay in Tribunals is 18 months to 2 years. There is no need to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (though some victims do). NDAs of course mean everything is hushed up and there is never any reform, as you say. They should be banned (and they are now banned in sexual harassment cases).
The universities continues the abuse and NOTHING changes
That is why this is the solution identifying the COMMON actors in HR to Legal to the external solicitors whose names crop up again and again in complaints of abusive and vexatious conduct
Many universities indeed use the same solicitors (for example, Shakespeare Martineau is a law firm that has a big chunk of the University legal market). We are looking into compiling a list of abusive solicitors in this area, as well as abusive HR Business Partners.
And finally once and for all justice will be PUBLIC and PERMANENT and there will be NO negotiation NO settlements and NO forgiveness
We agree with this. We are exploring class actions, as the abuse in UK universities is systemic & widespread. There are many victims. For example, Universities can be sued in America, if victim is American citizen or University activity (fundraising) takes place in US.
We also think that bullying and harassing academics (and those who enable them) should be expelled from professional bodies (such as the British Academy) and we will be pursing this in relation to some forthcoming cases.
Anonymous · 5 February 2025 at 16:28
N.O., as imperfect as they are, an employment tribunal is sometimes the only way that targets can achieve closure with what they’ve suffered.
I agree with you about identifying HR and other bad actors within the sector and the wider struggle, but notwithstanding this, in my opinion, it’s fine for people to fight their own battles through ETs. They shouldn’t feel bad or guilty for doing that.
Anonymous2 · 5 February 2025 at 16:38
Another means to identify the repeat offenders (from HR, senior management, law firms and hired investigators etc), is for individuals to also raise Employment Tribunal cases, when circumstances allow. Not everyone can readily join class actions.
As long as NDAs are not signed then the abuse will be public and permanently exposed, even from an ET raised by an individual.
6:10 · 6 February 2025 at 19:13
>> there will be NO negotiation NO settlements and NO forgiveness
Amen.
May justice be done on earth as it is in hell.
Anonymous · 3 February 2025 at 16:59
Since she took the role, I do not have one single email in my university inbox from our Vice Chancellor.
Not one. At any point. No introduction, invitation to staff townhall, not even replies to emails I sent.
We are completely worthless and invisible to them.
ProfPlum · 3 February 2025 at 20:44
I went to an open session with the Vice Chancellor at Cambridge Union about a year ago She was asked a number of questions by the audience members. A pretty respectful. audience, it must be said.
Still, she was not great at this, refusing to answer questions about Palestine encampment and disinvestment. She was asked about pay. She said something like “Pay is not very important, people love to come to Cambridge for other reasons, so we can get anyone we want. ”
I thought at the time it was a pretty poor answer. When she was later revealed as highest paid VC in Russell Group, I thought it was insensitive & crass.
Newoldboy · 4 February 2025 at 16:15
What can I say, at Cambridge we are a jolly polite old bunch.
However if that is what our superiors believe, they are utterly delusional.
The university has suffered a catastrophic loss of scholarly talent to competitors at home and abroad. It keeps getting worse. Some departments have already fallen off the rankings cliff.
We are teetering on the edge and the leadership is utterly oblivious.
ProfPlum · 4 February 2025 at 16:51
Very close to my own assessment. The fall down the rankings is real & reflected in other metrics (eg ERC grants) as well
Reasons; (i) Strange fascination of the centre in starting lots of costly and meaningless programs (eg Reimagining Professional Services), (ii) Hugely incompetent HR department which is growing in size and actively destroying departments and research groups, (iii) Lack of interest and support for early stage researchers & (iv) completely disengagement of most senior managers from the needs of research & teaching.
Priorities are clear with current cuts, I% for central administration, 5% for all the schools and faculties
It’s likely impossible to remove the people responsible for this in the short term, so the decline may become precipitous. It’s not just VC (though she doesn’t help), probably a complete clear-out of the current mediocrities in the centre is needed.
Wadsworth · 4 February 2025 at 18:51
Agreed. We have leadership that doesn’t lead, HR that destroys human resources, and a legal service that perpetrates breaking of the law.
It is a Kafkaesque, Orwellian nightmare. We have to wake up.
Anonymous · 4 February 2025 at 18:57
Since I left five years ago I could not believe Cambridge would get any worse for ECRs. But apparently, it has.
Cambridge is where careers go to die.
Anonymous · 4 February 2025 at 21:35
Cambridge seems to be in a really bad state, but it still has some way to go before it reaches the point where it becomes a place where people go to die and HR aim to kill, like some lesser universities.
There’s no coming back from that. Point of no return.
ProfPlum · 4 February 2025 at 22:22
Cambridge is in a poorish way. Not irretrievable yet, but certainly things will get worse before they get better
There’s very little control over the Registrary, Emma Rampton, who has made disastrous call after disastrous call. The VC should sack her
Gromitus · 5 February 2025 at 08:57
“Cambridge seems to be in a really bad state, but it still has some way to go before it reaches the point where it becomes a place where people go to die”
Sadly too optimistic.
The statement that Cambridge is where early careers “go to die” is not merely a figurative expression but also a statement of fact.
anoymous · 6 February 2025 at 07:56
“Some departments have already fallen off the rankings cliff.”: same problem in Oxford. It turns out that some “world-leading” scholars would also like to be able to pay their mortgage.
Arty · 6 February 2025 at 08:25
Yes it’s funny that.
Universities who restrict their recruitment to hire only PhD candidates who are somehow independently wealthy….. narrow their talent pool to approximately zero applicants.
If you are trying to bring the best brains, assume they are smart enough to follow the money.
Chiaroscuro · 6 February 2025 at 10:50
It is worse than that.
Those of us just starting our careers cannot even afford a mortgage in Oxford or Cambridge. We have been priced out of life and priced out of society.
All we have to look forward to is one day joining the ranks of the homeless who line our streets.
Meanwhile we have a VC who is paid so much $$$ that they can buy a new fucking house every fucking year if they feel like, and just leave it empty while the rest of us can only press our faces against the glass.
anonymous · 6 February 2025 at 15:54
In Oxford, the (then new) VC commissioned a Pay & Conditions review in 2023, supposedly “to continue to attract and inspire the brightest minds from across the globe to teach, learn and deliver world-leading research”. After one year of committees, town hall meetings and reports, the result is that most faculty members I know have had a pay rise below inflation (once again).
Ripcord · 6 February 2025 at 22:29
Cambridge is playing exactly the same game. A loudly touted “people strategy” has yet to appear and instead of taking the urgent action required, they are wasting money on idiotic consultancy reports and endless revisions to bureaucratic documents that mask their total lack of action. It is all just spin and shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.
Instead of wasting time on fantasy proposals like the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, the government needs to intervene now to prevent the country’s leading universities from collapsing entirely.
Sadly I fear this will only happen after the inevitable shock of seeing us plunge in global rankings, by which point the damage will be done and very, very very hard to reverse.
Cromwell · 4 February 2025 at 20:24
“Pay is not very important, people love to come to Cambridge for other reasons, so we can get anyone we want. ”
— This is a shocking and appalling thing to say in front of one’s own staff. Not only is it manifestly false. It is nakedly exploitative, and grossly hypocritical.
Remember, that Cambridge VC is being paid more money by the university **every single day** than it is giving to some of the nation’s top PhD inventors, innovators and future thought leaders in a whole calendar month.
These are the priorities of a corrupt and failing institution.
Anonymous · 4 February 2025 at 21:53
Agreed, it’s heading towards becoming a cesspool alongside another failed and hollow shell of a university on the brink of extinction.
Let’s hope both can get rid of their VCs, overhaul their HR departments, sort out their mismanagement, and start treating staff and students with basic human decency before its too late.
Adeimantus · 5 February 2025 at 09:19
Any institution can survive mediocrity.
But no institution can survive mediocracy.
Sadly that is what we have.
It is a grotesque spectacle to see the brightest intellects of the country being treated as disposable garbage by a bunch of half-baked dimwits who themselves barely passed sixth form college and have never ceased to despise and resent those who worked hard and studied harder.
ProfPlum · 5 February 2025 at 09:35
It’s way better to go into university management than academia. Huge salaries, better work-life balance, less stress Even mid-ranking management is on salaries way better than most academics
You get the opportunity to brag endlessly about how management have worked wonders, whilst humiliating the academics, maybe even sacking them.
Of course, you have no heart ….
Anonymous · 5 February 2025 at 11:15
I think that’s putting it charitably. I’d be willing to bet that if you were to conduct a brain scan study on the managerial class within universities, you’d soon discover that, in many of them, the prefrontal cortex looks like Pyongyang at night—lifeless, barely anything flickering.
Those running universities are, sadly, psychopaths, and they shouldn’t be in positions where they are given free rein to inflict their sadism on either sector or staff and students.
Anon · 5 February 2025 at 12:17
“It is a grotesque spectacle to see the brightest intellects of the country being treated as disposable garbage by a bunch of half-baked dimwits who themselves barely passed sixth form college and have never ceased to despise and resent those who worked hard and studied harder.”
Thank you. I thought I was on my own thinking that very thought.
You can see it every day, senior academics being misled and misinformed by idiotic or malicious HR, as if abusing someone’s trust was somehow a way of getting your own back on a brighter, academically more successful human being.
Eileen Nugent · 15 February 2025 at 03:46
Seem to have forgotten all the legal advisors, the ones failing all their employment law examinations, the ones ignoring all the organisational health and safety legal obligations (work-related stress regulation) – they would be the top priority for any clear out would they not. The ones constructing all those expensive legal arguments to legally justify the doing of nothing over and over again. The ones templating all those junk HR letters. The ones who think they can use their legal skills to take anyone they want down to divert attention from the legal garbage they continuously produced. Where was the basic human decency from the legal advisors? Didn’t they have control over the properties of the working conditions? Didn’t they have control over whether any problems with the working conditions were remedied? Weren’t they given the task of making sure employment law was followed? Weren’t they supposed to be keeping track of all the organisational legal obligations? Did they just spend “more money **every single day** than the university is giving to some of the nation’s top PhD inventors, innovators and future thought leaders in a whole calendar month taking legal actions to destroy the nation’s top PhD inventors, innovators and future thought leaders. Where did all that institutional corruption and failure emerge from?
Eileen Nugent · 15 February 2025 at 03:49
Where there is failure to manage conflicts of interest there is corruption and failure.
Anonymous · 3 February 2025 at 21:34
Collegiality and respect can easily be weaponized by an institution. We see it repeatedly—a strategy used to discredit individuals who, for whatever reason, have become targets. A target may be harassed, mobbed to their wit’s end, and dehumanized, sometimes for years, all while experiencing little to no collegiality themselves.
Yet, if they “speak out of turn” or express any anger at this treatment, it is immediately seized upon as a violation of “collegiality.” This, often with fingers also pointed to “mental health” is then weaponized further to gaslight and smear them as “unhinged”, “volatile” or “dangerous”.
Caution is always warranted when it comes to institutional narratives about respect and collegiality and especially when there are stark asymetries of power at play.
TigerWhoCametoET · 3 February 2025 at 21:45
Respect is not part of it at all. The key issue is Dignity. Protecting basic dignity means granting people the right to push back against acts that violate their fundamental self worth, including in disrespectful ways, if needd. This is obvious when you think about the right to reject unwanted sexual advances. And the same is true of other abusive acts by managers and those in positions of power.
Anonymous · 3 February 2025 at 22:43
Tiger, I agree, I was using the word in reference to the other comment. Without protecting the basic dignity of staff and students and empowering them with the ability to “fight” back for their rights, nothing changes in the system, and it only generates more targets and enables further abuse by the powerful.
Collegiality cannot become an institutional jujitsu used to break and destabilize targets of abuse.
TigerWhoCametoET · 4 February 2025 at 04:28
Thank you, yes. It is not collegiality to shield and protect perpetrators, even if they are nominally colleagues.
Lucie · 4 February 2025 at 06:36
Terms like “collegiality” should not be present in an anti-bullying statement at all.
It is like if a company had in its anti-sexual harassment policy a clause that young women should be cautious to ensure that they continue showing “collegiality” towards their senior male “colleagues”.
Wtf, that would be the biggest toxic culture red flag ever
Victoria · 4 February 2025 at 06:47
It’s a terrible word
The word is used by management to describe someone who doesn’t agree with them
You are showing a “lack of collegiality”
Aneeta · 7 February 2025 at 17:17
“Yes you were sexually assaulted but now you have behaved in an uncollegial manner and hurt people’s feelings so who is the real victim here really”
Equinox · 8 February 2025 at 11:33
Replace “sexual assault” with “bullying” and you have just provided a perfect description of the university’s “Dignity at Work” procedure
Anonymous · 4 February 2025 at 11:53
Thank you for highlighting this specific issue. I have also witnessed this approach in another institution. But what disturbs me even more is that it is *precisely* this approach that is being applied, almost word for word.
In my opinion, this must be an established and shared practice across the sector, along with the other appalling strategies highlighted on this forum, especially the harrowing case of Prof. Kostakopoulou. This ghastly Gaslighting issue is a very real problem, and is being deliberately applied by many in authority.
And why are HR departments and senior management being so openly blatant and behaving as though they are completely immune to being held accountable? We can only hope that the Employment Tribunal system deals with this. The sector also urgently needs an independent regulator for processing complaints and whistleblowing.
Anonymous · 4 February 2025 at 14:19
I remember Kostakopolou’s case—it was horrifying what was done to her. What is especially troubling, as Kostakopolou pointed out in a paper last year, is that this harassment and gaslighting may sometimes involve outside authorities and organizations.
Even in democratic countries, a university (or a department within it) that follows this path can begin to resemble a totalitarian regime, targeting ‘dissent’ (replacing ‘lack of collegiality’ with ‘dissent’). In the process, national laws, and sometimes even international laws may be broken, violating the basic human rights of the target, extending beyond to sovereign citizens, and even causing diplomatic incidents.
How do these institutions reform themselves when they are so far gone? Can they, or is it too late?
The key to reform, I believe, is an overhaul of leadership, independent regulators on issues like complaints and whistleblowing, and scrutiny of the underlying cultural norms of these institutions. This also explains why HR departments and senior management often double down in retaliation, even when caught and when it isn’t in their best interests. Callousness conceals protectionism and a desperate, flailing attempt to survive.
Marlowe Raynor · 15 February 2025 at 16:54
On the Kostakopolou case: The same lawyers from Shakespeare Martineau who were hired by Cambridge in the Magdalen Connolly case, were also responsible for Kostakopolou’s treatment at Warwick.
There is now public evidence regarding her allegations of foul play presented in this Twitter thread:
https://x.com/DocheryE39710/status/1890516832827723882
21percent.org · 15 February 2025 at 17:10
A primer on the Kostakopoulou case is here
https://21percent.org/?p=1360
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 01:58
I would start probing the work-related stress processes. I would start pointing fingers at work-related stress processes. Are they non-existent? are they dangerous? is all the unregulated work-related stress contributing to an organisation that is “unhinged”, “volatile” or”dangerous”? Are the processes smearing health risk all over the organisation?
Anonymous · 5 February 2025 at 15:15
Gaslighting is not always a one-to-one abuse, this is true, and an entire level of management and HR can collude against innocent individual targets in this way. As this becomes more exposed then perhaps it will be less likely that outside organisations take the side of the Universities?
“How do these institutions reform themselves when they are so far gone? Can they, or is it too late?”
I want to say that it is not too late, but I just don’t know if it is possible to reform, at least for certain Universities, especially those under the most financial strain.
HR and senior managers commit their abuses and then simply hand the entire matter over to their lawyers when staff continue to resist. Eventually, Universities will then snuff out the entire matter with a settlement and NDA at the door of the Employment Tribunal. Nice and neat. All abusers know that this is what will happen and so have no real incentive to change. So refusing to sign such NDAs is vital.
In my opinion, one of the most important aims of forums like this is to alert staff to what is going on, and for them to acquire the right kind of evidence to fight back, especially when they start to see signs of Gaslighting, and moves to remove them unfairly from their jobs etc.
Anonymous · 5 February 2025 at 16:11
Anonymous, I agree. Knowledge of the tactics universities use to silence “dissent” (or perceived “dissent”), such as gaslighting and mobbing, and highlighting the harm these cause at both the individual and organizational levels could persuade outside entities that it isn’t worth it.
To your points on the economic crisis affecting universities and the likelihood of them abandoning this style of “management,” sadly, I agree with both, but I also share your cautious optimism. I have faith that even the most toxic institutions can turn things around if the will is there.
In many institutions, gaslighting and other tactics have become established organizational norms and are very difficult to change, but it’s worth the challenge. The key, I think, is to link the survival of universities with efforts to reform the organizational cultures that are currently facing these problems.
After all, it is in the best interest of these institutions, especially in times like these, to recognize the need for change in order to ensure survival. Safeguarding the dignity of staff and students (in a meaningful sense, as opposed to the “dignity at work” policy) and instituting stronger rules to protect the rights of employees, and against whistleblower retaliation and the use of NDAs, is the most cost-effective means of achieving this.
You’re right—spreading awareness of this issue, so that people have the means to identify and the framework to challenge it, underscores the importance of a forum and community like this, where staff and students can speak freely without fear of retaliation from these institutions.
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 02:07
Can’t NDA health and safety. NDA has no effect. Why should anyone have to go through the stress of an employment tribunal when they could report a health and safety breach – mishandling of work-related stress – to a health and safety regulator.
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 02:12
They would soon be developing proper work-related stress processes then wouldn’t they because they would need them for themselves then wouldn’t they. Don’t be afraid to probe the organisational work-related stress processes.
Bernard Woolley · 13 February 2025 at 18:39
OK so I have this theory. What do you think. Is it possible the senior admin (registrary, HR, legal and so on) have deliberately “mined” the VC role so they were ready to nuke her as a failsafe before their own scandals broke?
And sidn’t they already do this before to Stephen (Toope)? Let’s piece it out.
For example they knew when they made that “Christmas video”, they were copying the style and format of the Queen’s speech. I doubt she noticed it. But they must have. Then they knew those travel expenses could have been omitted or reclassified. But kept them in (even declared them to the press).
And now, their “big idea” was to splash her in a weekend profile piece in the Guardian (about supporting the government’s agenda, oxford corridor blah blah).
But surely – oh surely, surely, surely – the press office knew, full well, this is the biggest brightest red flag for the right wing press to go all guns blazing against. (And even that piece backfired with a dangler about her obscene salary and offensive justification for it).
So I know this probably sounds cynical. But I really don’t know.
I kind of suspect they leaked a lot of stuff against Toope in 2020/21 and the same old “sir (and madam) humphrey” characters are still ruling the show.
Thoughts?
SirArnoldRobinson · 13 February 2025 at 19:28
Sir Bernard,
We have trained you well. The years in the Civil Service have given you a deep insight into the workings of Cambridge University.
Your suggestion is of course correct.
We had hoped that she might be a ‘Jim Hacker’ figure, easy to manipulate, but with enough sense not to blow the place up. She is not.
The leaking of the “personal travel expenses” was a masterstroke. And the tin-eared Guardian interview an unexpected bonus.
I look forward to standing you some good brandies at the Athenaeum,
Sir Arnold
Dompé · 13 February 2025 at 22:45
When the Toope “scandals” (so-called) hit the press, hadn’t HR & registry just done a massive set of mistakes over their handling of the strikes, pensions, COVID-19 and their idiotic cancellation of the promotion round (then the long tail of consequences that produced)?
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 02:15
Where the fuck has the actual HR been for the last decade?
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 02:25
Whose bright idea was it to put respected legal academic Dr Catherine MacKenzie through an employment tribunal process for an unfair dismissal that was already conceded by the university and then not comply with a re-engagement order from an employment tribunal? No fault was found with respected legal academic Dr Catherine Mackenzie’s conduct at all, hence the re-engagement order.
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 02:32
How about that for a situation that generates significant amounts of unnecessary work-related stress. Thankfully Dr Catherine MacKenzie is a barrister and had the professional legal skills and personal resilience to weather that storm with her dignity and self respect in tact.
GM · 15 February 2025 at 13:01
From the cases of staff mistreatment that I have seen over the course of my career, it frankly is astonishing how many involved scholars who were either:
1. Young;
2. Female;
3. Ethnic Minority; and/or
4. Studied outside of the UK
With the overwhelming majority of cases among faculty meeting 2 or more of these criteria.
This is surely no coincidence.
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 02:41
That key decision seems to have set the current dysfunctional HR organisational dynamics in motion and seems to be why there is no genuine attempt to remedy any employment situation because somebody discovered it was possible to abuse employment tribunal process to get rid of the problems the organisation generated and get away with it.
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 02:43
Not possible to get away with it now is it, now that the organisation has to start complying with its legal obligation to regulate work-related stress.
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 02:59
It’s no wonder Professor Stephen Toope had such difficulties in his efforts to reform the organisation during a global pandemic when organisational dynamics like that had been set in motion. HR vomiting their wellbeing policies over us all, recommending yoga, whilst ignoring the signs that work-related stress was increasing in the organisation and impacting worker wellbeing.
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 03:10
Shoving their imposter syndrome courses down our throats. Training us to whistleblow to the wrong national regulator, forcing us to whistleblow to the wrong national regulator to wam them they might need to redirect concerns to the one of the three right national regulators. HR training courses showing us how to covertly administer medication because it’s a safeguarding course designed for those in a social and healthcare setting and they can be bothered to learn how to do any real safeguarding. Administering a wellbeing waterboarding with their “resilience training course” whilst not even being able to pay us our wages without dumping their workload on an overworked employment tribunal.
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 03:19
Junk HR templates referring every worker in a state of high-work related stress to the Samaritans instead of trying to identifying and managing the most significant work-related stressors. Dumping on the Samaritans, dumping on the NHS during a global pandemic, dumping on the employment tribunal. Fly-tipping organisational stress.
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 03:23
Who are the organisational stress fly-tippers?
Yes · 15 February 2025 at 13:26
That is such a good description. The whole logic of the organisation is to externalise the cost of their actions. Even getting paid for your teaching hours or filing a basic expense claim involves so many steps it takes as long as the work itself. They just want to exhaust people to save on cost.
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 03:25
Can’t NDA organisational stress fly-tipping.
- - · 15 February 2025 at 14:12
It works like this
Head of Department — externalise problem to HR
HR — externalise problem to university counselling
University counselling — externalise problem to NHS
NHS — please stay on the line, you are caller 924 in the queue
? - ? · 15 February 2025 at 16:03
That is probably true for health related complaints.
For any complaints about harassment, discrimination or breach of employment law it is more like:
1. Staff member goes to HOD with polite request
2. HOD goes to HR with concerned request
3. HR goes to Legal with alarmed request
4. Legal goes to staff member with hostile request to STFU
Keystone · 16 February 2025 at 11:15
This is why Cambridge is so dysfunctional. Everything is managed by a process of “Chinese whispers” whereby person x has their (friendly and polite) concern related by person y to person (or committee) z, and by the time it gets to the UberCommissariat X (somewhere in Registry or Legal) they are being portrayed as some kind of Evil Psycho Monster who is mentally deranged and dangerous has no goals or interests other than the total destruction of the university and hence —– must be Eliminated in the shortest time possible
The staff member spends weeks or months confused about why no-one is responding to their polite and reasonable requests or able to meet and talk, until one day getting a shock letter with false allegations that threatens to end their career forever.
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 03:33
The problem with going to an employment tribunal after a decade of dumping work on them is that they might not be that sympathetic to your cause.
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 04:30
CIPD, the professional body for HR and people development was issuing warnings about these serious risks years ago, in 2017: https://www.cipp.org.uk/resources/news/cipdas2016.html
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 05:06
Again I would like to ask what HR has been doing for this last decade? Did they have the backs of all the overworked administrators and IT staff during COVID? Did they have the backs of all the overworked laboratory staff organising COVID testing? Did they have the backs of all the overworked academics when all their funding sources got screwed up during BREXIT and/or their labs got shut down during COVID? Did they have the backs of all the overworked early career researchers when they were prevented from applying for the future leaders programme which was not in accordance with employment law or in line with what other universities were doing? Did they have the backs of any worker in the organisation? There are more options to manage your levels of work-related stress as an organisational stress fly-tipper, its harder to comprehend the plight of those with no release value for all that work-related stress that is left to continuously build and have a severe impact on their health.
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 05:26
It’s no wonder everyone in the organisation is in a continuous state of feeling like going on strike about anything and everything. HR training courses on micro aggressions that have everyone afraid to even raise an eyebrow never mind talk to each other in case one wrong word costs them their job, vomiting dignity at work over everyone is some insufferable video, and all the while the most significant HR risk is just ignored and every worker is left to suffer the health consequences. Screwing up career development processes for everyone in the organisation and squandering the human resources gifted to the organisation by the nation and by the world.
Helpless · 15 February 2025 at 16:40
The problem with the microaggression stuff in my view is that it completely ignored the real issues facing minority members of staff. Those real issues are 1) indirect discrimination in hiring and promotion, and 2) inadequate financial support to retain people from an immigrant background who don’t benefit from large amounts of parental wealth to subsidise their choice of university/career.
On the other hand, it has gifted HR with a wondrous additional set of mechanisms to stitch up and retaliate against members of staff they want to attack and undermine. Indeed, the proliferation of new “rules” (in poorly explained training videos) means that everyone is breaking the rules all the time – and hence, anyone can be singled out for arbitrary attack, not because of compliance, but because HR have decided to do someone in.
angrybarbie · 14 February 2025 at 10:27
The deputy is the anti-Midas.
everything she touches turns brown and soggy.
Anonymous · 15 February 2025 at 15:41
Well, they have produced a lot of expensive training videos and social media PR.
Mary Calkins · 14 February 2025 at 05:25
It is an interesting suggestion. To my knowledge it is not quite the same cast of characters as it was under Stephen. though, it could reflect a similar pattern of norms.
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 05:39
That is the problem, once a pattern of organisational norms gets established it can be very difficult to shift. The whole organisation can run on autopilot on a particular set of processes. Everyone then has the potential to fall victim to the same organisational fault including those designing and administering the faulty organisational processes.
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 10:32
The people processes seem to be unfit for purpose. CIPD – The Professional Body for HR & People Development – were particularly clear during the COVID pandemic about the need to manage occupational stress in order to prevent employee burnout and severe cases of worker ill health. Unnecessary sources of occupational stress – ones that cannot objectively be justified e.g.unresolved bullying/harassment situations – are the first targets for elimination in any process designed to manage occupational stress and prevent worker burnout and worker ill health in a ways which optimise organisational productivity.
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2025 at 10:57
Pushing a serious case of work-related stress out to an employment tribunal – signposting unlikely to cover the legal duty of care a solicitor owes to vulnerable clients or witnesses in the absence of any work-related stress risk assessment being done to analyse possible sources of the health risk. If employer refused to do one, the regulator would have to be contacted to get one done before any legal professional could commence any employment tribunal process in connection with the case.
Alanam · 14 February 2025 at 11:31
There is one less life in the world today, as the result of a specific decision by the head of legal services, in the summer of 2023.
21percent.org · 14 February 2025 at 11:34
If you are able and feel comfortable doing so, please let contact@21percent.org have some information on this matter
Eileen Nugent · 15 February 2025 at 10:16
It seems the time has come from some extremely careful checking to be done, the kind of checking that should only be undertaken by a national regulator an organisation that knows how to investigate extremely carefully in ways that minimise risk to every party and ensure fairness to every party.
Anonymous · 14 February 2025 at 19:48
Are legal services also bound to same duty of care as managers. For example legal threats, coercion or covert defamation, similar liability as would be for line management. Or exempt from organisational duty of care. Not getting clear answer elsewhere, thank you.
Anon · 14 February 2025 at 20:21
No.
Apparently, they are the law and above it, even when it comes to human life.
Anonymous · 14 February 2025 at 20:52
I understand this comment was likely meant as a rhetorical answer, but my question was intended as a literal request for clarification, thank you.
21percent.org · 14 February 2025 at 21:48
Lawyers have a duty to act with integrity. It is clear that in the Post Office scandal, for example, the PO’s in-house lawyers failed this test & some will face a reckoning and likely be struck off.
“Richard Moorhead, professor of law and professional ethics at the University of Exeter and a prolific writer on the Horizon scandal, said it was ‘highly likely’ that people would be removed from the profession. He added that he also expects one or two individuals to face criminal prosecutions”
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/post-office-scandal-expert-moorhead-predicts-solicitor-strike-offs/5118704.article
Actions such as threats, coercion, covert defamation will fall under professional misconduct and so should be reported to the professional body, the SRA. These are serious enough to warrant removal of right to practice for an in-house lawyer.
Our understanding is that the duty of care is a duty of the employer. If the legal services of an employer (such as University Legal Services) behave in this way, then the employer has still breached the duty of care to the employee.
Eileen Nugent · 15 February 2025 at 00:34
I think the main problem is that there has been a societal shift – new legal obligation to regulate work-related stress introduced and it has caught legal advisors out. There is a conflict with what they are doing and some general legal principles they are taught to always keep in mind and only the most sensitive ones will detect there is something wrong with what they are doing and that it needs to change to comply with their legal duty of care. The remedy for work-related stress is not an employment tribunal, more work-related stress is not an effective remedy for work-related stress – it’s a human rights violation that employment tribunals are not sensitive too. They have been mentally torturing whistleblowers for years and none of them noticed it was a human rights violation and these cases should never have been dealt with this way. In France whistleblowers don’t get fired.
Anonymous · 15 February 2025 at 15:45
@21percent, thank you for your answer, this is what I was looking for. If I understand correctly, then, we have a duty to report incidents of harassment against staff, even when they were initiated by members of our own legal services team.
Eileen Nugent · 15 February 2025 at 00:41
They accused me of harassment for repeatedly raising valid concerns that were not addressed but the concerns situation inverts the charge and it is then organisation harassment of the individual raising valid concerns. They can they to sue me, they can try bankrupt me, they can try to put me in jail. I don’t care about people whose actions are not worth respecting. I won’t up with any more of their legal garbage.
Glasnostic · 15 February 2025 at 13:52
They threaten to sue everyone. Individual staff, unions, student papers, even the national press. Some have quite the letter collection.
They think this “protects the brand” but mainly it just protects insiders.
Then it damages our brand in the long run, because when we cannot discuss these problems one by one, they just persist until it all comes out. That happened with the sexual harassment cases 6-7 years back. We could have avoided it if we had an earlier more transparent conversation but we made it worse instead by victimising survivors.
Professor Shonku · 16 February 2025 at 14:56
“They accused me of harassment for repeatedly raising valid concerns that were not addressed… I won’t up with any more of their legal garbage”
Seriously? The hypocrisy in that is sickening. For legal services at a university to accuse anyone of harassment is pretty rich when all they ever do is threaten, coerce and harass staff, students, media and activists for daring to raise legitimate compliance concerns, act as whistleblowers, or report on matters of public interest).
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Eileen Nugent · 15 February 2025 at 03:11
They can’t go round causing lots of unnecessary stress for people to cover up their own mistakes and protect their own interests, abuse of process, failure to manage conflicts of interest, failure to manage health and safeguarding risk. They not exempt from a general duty of care, they can’t use a legal process to harass someone out of raising concerns. Some of them resign pretty quick once you start questioning them and then it’s clear there was a massive problem with what was done. They produce lots of legal garbage and rely on you being afraid or giving up. Don’t be afraid, it’s all legal garbage. Don’t be scarred by the actions of people that are not worth respecting. Call out their legal garbage and put it all in the regulators.
KL · 16 February 2025 at 14:43
Last year, the university lawyers were trying to coerce our Course Director to resign during the middle of our academic degree.
It did not occur tot them that they were about to trigger, not only a raft of student complaints, but also a wave of legal action against the university from its students.
Jessica · 15 February 2025 at 10:11
Eileen you are a hero. Don’t be afraid, that is exactly right – we need to stand together.
Me2 · 15 February 2025 at 15:12
I imagine I speak for a lot of people when I say there are a good number of “lurkers” on this forum who haven’t posted yet, because we remain employed at the university and are afraid to voice our agreement.
Know Eileen, that you speak for the experience of many.
21percent.org · 15 February 2025 at 15:43
Be completely reassured.
The 21 Group will not under any circumstances hand over any data that can identify any poster to Cambridge University or anyone else.
You can use a VPN to hide your IP address, if you’re worried. We recommend https://protonvpn.com/free-vpn
There are of course a huge number (probably a substantial majority) of the University who are extremely unhappy with its current direction.
Popping Angry · 15 February 2025 at 20:19
Anyone going to the all staff meeting on Feb 27th?
Wondering what our registrar has to say about all these issues.
Also is that quote from a registrar laughing at staff who suggested they should do the work rather than yet more bloody overpaid and vacuous consultants from her? If so, we should hold her up on it. Enough is enough.
EmmaR · 15 February 2025 at 20:55
Yes that is me.
Remember the all staff meeting is run like the Congress of the Communist Party of East Germany circa 1988.
Any dissent or lack of collegiality, and the HR Stasi will be coming for you.
KW Biermann · 15 February 2025 at 21:21
Hahahaha obviously I had too much to drink tonight as for 5 seconds I actually thought this was real and that the meeting was about to go down like Saddam’s 1979 party congress 😀
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLUktJbp2Ug
Invisible · 16 February 2025 at 04:02
It’s only a virtual meeting though. We can see them, but they don’t feel the need to see us.
That really just says it all. We are in a very real sense invisible to them, and must remain so.
Anon · 16 February 2025 at 07:54
Popping Angry may have been referring to a meeting where some of us were very visible. Interesting reaction from the queen to a suggestion that expert input may come from her staff rather than from expensive external consultancy… Off with their heads!
Straight Outta Hixton · 16 February 2025 at 12:01
That is such obvious rubbish
look at the pathetically lame quality of what these “experts” are producing
starting with the “people strategy” document
https://www.hr.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/university_of_cambridge_people_strategy_2024-27_update2_date_7_10_24_175dpi.pdf
It is an embarrassment. Pretty smiley pictures but not one single
1 – key performance indicator or metric of any kind
2 – numerical targets or goals (achieve X by date Y)
3 – implementation timeline
Nothing that can be quantified, nothing that can be held accountable.
No individual in charge, no plan, basically total bullshit from start to finish
It is all about avoiding accountability and doing nothing while Rome burns
If our students submitted something this crap as their final assignment, we would fail them for the degree
Eileen Nugent · 16 February 2025 at 15:11
For a long time we thought we had a problem with our people. It now seems like the actual problem is a problem with our people processes, these people processes seem to be crashing on the most complex cases and it is that crashing of the people processes that is then doing harm to the people and generating this grievance process anaphylaxis where instead of a grievance process solving a problem for a person it actually makes the persons problem much worse. Since all people are the subjects of these people processes, that includes those who administer them, this is a problem for all of the people in the organisation.
The real problem with the people processes appears to be, they don’t yet have any way to take into account work-related stress and its health impact on people. There is then no organisational stress release valve to enable the regulation of work-related stress for people in the organisation which in a high pressure environment is completely unsafe. The people systems are then crashing on any complex stress-generating case, when the unregulated stress then spirals out of control – that’s why they are doing such damage to people. No one is enjoying this situation, not any of the workers, not any of the management, not HR, not legal. It looks like a problem with people but it’s actually a problem with people processes which now really do now need to be updated without any further delay to prevent any further damage to people in the organisation and a reoccurrence of this problem with them in future. If you take people out but leave the same people systems in place, the same errors will eventually crop up again because the real problem, the people processes, has not been identified and fixed.
Since it’s an embedded systemic problem with people processes, the strategy for analysing and fixing it is completely different to when there is a problem with people. It’s like a game of chicken, hero, turkey with the people processes. The first phase is the hero phase where some of the people who cross the people processes with a complex case alone discover some major problems with them and have no choice but to speak up. The next phase is the turkey phase where the heroes get together to cross it as the turkeys and that gives a more accurate assessment of whether there is a major systemic fault with the people processes or whether a hero case was an individual case fluke. The end phase is then the chicken phase where everyone in the organisation becomes a chicken and they all cross the people processes together to discover all the problems with them for all the people in the organisation. The advantage of the chicken phase is that it maximises the chances of the both beating the people processes and improving them in future. That gives the most accurate picture of the all the systemic faults in the people processes which is what is needed to rip them out and to actually build better people processes that will avoid all the same problems and work for all the people in the organisation without exception.
We are all the Davids against the Goliath of a people system but all the Davids do equal the Goliath of a people system. All hands on deck, all people on board, these people processes need to be ripped out of the organisation and new safer ones built that will protect all the people in the organisation at all times. This will make the whole organisation more resilience and allow it to better cope with major external organisational stressors in future. There needs to be new people processes put in place that allow everyone to be people again.
Eileen Nugent · 16 February 2025 at 16:02
I know these people processes have been the source of extreme hardship for many people and the last thing people might feel like doing is engaging with these people processes again but this is the only way to create better ones in future. That is the only way to produce people processes that work for all the people in Cambridge and that everyone can live with.
Callicles · 18 February 2025 at 07:30
1. No Goliath matches the strength of many Davids
2. David beat Goliath anyway
“Are the better superior and stronger….? Then the many are by nature superior to the one” (Socrates)