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.
80 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…♫ ♫
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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”
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.