Appointment committees are a common arena in which bullying can occur in academic life.
In hiring, scholarly excellence competes with baser emotions like: “He’s my collaborator,” or “She laughed at my conference talk in 2019.” or “He has never cited my influential papers”.
In many universities, the Head of Department plays a key role in hiring. Often the Head controls membership of the appointments committee. In any case, they wield a lot of power over the members of the committee, which can be used to threaten or cajole.
I’m a young lecturer in a department at a university in the UK
A lectureship was advertised. I was asked to serve on the appointments committee. Over a 100 people applied. We drew up a strong shortlist of 6 for final interview.
On the shortlist was a long-standing collaborator of my Head of Department.
The day before the appointment committee was due to make the decision, my Head of Department came into my office
He shut the door behind him, unsmilingly.
“I want to be sure that you’ll vote the right way on the appointments committee tomorrow”, he said.
He had placed himself between me and the door. I took a step back, but there was nowhere to go.
“Sit down,” he said. “This won’t take long. Your promotion case is coming up. As your Head of Department, I’m presenting the case to the Senior Promotions Committee”
I began to feel sick.
“I want to be able to support your promotion”, he said.
As he turned to go, he said, “Careers are fragile things, I’d really hate to see yours end over a misunderstanding.”
He paused at the door. Before opening it, he said “Remember. If you say anything about this conversation, I’ll deny it.”
I broke down on the appointments committee the next day, trying to explain what had happened.
They were all shocked and horrified.
Mostly at me.
Only one member of the committee supported me. He said we had to stop the appointment process.
The Head of Department reported me to Human Resources. Human Resources reported me to the Head of School.
The Head of School said that I had broken protocol and I had unilaterally failed the search. I was given a warning.
It’s an exceptionally shocking case, but the 21 Group has satisfied itself that the account is trustworthy and accurate.
This case is unusual in the thuggish way the Head of Department tried to carry out his threat. However, the HR cover-up is standard in UK universities, as is the victim-blaming and gas-lighting by university management.
The 21 Group are always pleased to receive the testimony of the victims of bullies in academia. Their voices should be heard. If you have been bullied, please use [email protected] to tell us your story.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated occurrence
I served on our promotion committee. The head of department presented a case that was fanatically biased against a candidate who (inevitably after the presentation) was not promoted. The head of department is now a ProVC, thankfully at another university
This does not surprise me in the slightest. I was one on a shortlist of three people to be interviewed for the role of lecturer at a fairly well ranked university. As part of the interview process we each had to present about our research, scholarship and teaching to the whole department. While I was not allowed to see the presentations by the other two candidates, I am told by several sources in the room that I was the only one to actually cover the three areas required in the task. I am told that of the three candidates, the people in the room voted me as their top choice.
However, I did not get offered the job. Turns out the other two candidates were former supervisees of the HoD, who overruled the group vote and decided to appoint the person that she herself had co-authored papers with.
Massive conflict of interest that was totally ignored by faculty when I raised it.
The lack of transparency and the amount of politiking and nepotism in academia is truly shocking.
Sorry to hear of this bad experience
“Massive conflict of interest that was totally ignored by faculty when I raised it.”
Ignored … Normally, if you complain, it’s you who are the subject of the investigation.
I’ve been in my department since 2000 and we have run about about 10 lectureship recruitment exercises. Of those, maybe 1 was conducted fairly and without interference.
Nepotism (hiring colleagues, collaborators, former students), lack of transparency (jobs tailored to specific candidates, or informal decisions made before any formal hiring) and biases (age discrimination, gender or racial discrimination, institutional or subject biases) are just completely rampant.
In general, you won’t get a job at a department without a powerful patron.
Nor a promotion these days either… I went for a 3-2-1 promotion case based on a 3 in teaching. I have more level 3 teaching evidence than many existing senior faculty and yet I was told I ‘havent been at the university long enough to demonstrate teaching leadership’. This despite my SFHEA, programme directorship, designing 3+ brand new modules, publishing well cited education papers, and winning the university teaching award… Then they go and promote literally the worst person in my dept who has been there 15 years, constantly scores low in evaluations, but has made a friend of the AD international. It’s so corrupt it’s unbelievable. And to then get gaslit by senior management who claim things are somehow fair…
Within the Department of Discipline X at Oxbridge, the preceding Head of Department (HoD), whose academic focus lay in a related but separate field, orchestrated the appointment of an old acquaintance to a Chair in Discipline X. This candidate, however, lacked expertise in Discipline X, a fact underscored by the simultaneous shortlisting of two eminently qualified individuals (one of whom subsequently attained a full professorship in a much stronger Ivy League Department). Recognizing that senior professors of Discipline X within the department would oppose this appointment, the HoD, in concert with their friend, the Head of Division/School, excluded all senior professors of Discipline X from the appointment committee. Consequently, the old acquaintance was appointed to the Chair of X and later became the HoD. The new HoD subsequently suppressed numerous allegations of bullying, harassment, and abuse of power against their predecessor. For these efforts, the previous HoD was bestowed with one of the United Kingdom’s highest honors.
A major problem is the untrammelled power of Heads of Department.
Their powers are often not written down, so an unscrupulous HoD can often abuse the position.
Many HoDs govern by favouritism, rewarding their friends and punishing their enemies.
This has indeed be my experience unfortunately. I have been punished for voicing my concerns about this surprising appointment.
Kent?
I wouldn’t be surprised if some academics promoted to HoDs have research misconduct skeletons in their closets.
Discipline P at Oxbridge is the same (famously bad)
They just had a hiring round for a professorship, in which the two “shortlisted” candidates were an existing professor in the exact same department (?!?!) and the husband of an existing professor in the exact same department…
They aren’t even pretending to hide corruption and nepotism any more. It is just every hand in the pot grabbing as much public money as they can get.
If a HoD breaks the law or many laws, they should face the full weight of it and, where appropriate, serve time in prison.
Prison is just another kind of university department — but with less bureaucracy
The good thing about prison is that it finally gives you the peace and quiet to read again
The peer review can be harsh, I’ve heard.
If the head of department looks like he is from a hated prison demographic already, then he can forget about peace for reading but for sure, he will get a lot of lively peer review.
Interesting proposition! To finally send your Head of Department to prison, would want evidence of serious criminal offense. In the UK, that might mean manslaughter (Class A), abetting suicide (Class B), or ill-treatment of persons of unsound mind (Class D). Perhaps you are in a better position however to find evidence for: fraud by abuse of position (Class G), attempts to fabricate evidence with intent of misleading a tribunal (Class I), or general acts of corruption in public office (Class I).
Multiple charges can be brought at once, so you might even succeed in this. What fun times.
In the UK, only the little people go to jail. Heads of Dept should be fine, they can do what they want with impunity. Certainly Vice Chancellors can.
The Vice Chancellor of Swansea University (Prof Richard Davies) was dismissed for gross misconduct in 2019.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49129345
There was a police investigation. The results of the investigation were then submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service for its consideration. The CPS determined “that it is not in the public interest to proceed any further”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-56284865#:~:text=In%20a%20statement%2C%20Swansea%20University,Professor%20Marc%20Clement%2C%20were%20dismissed.
The VC of Greater Manchester University (Prof George Holmes) has just been suspended.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2jvv20xv4o
We’ll see what will happen, but we suspect “that it is not in the public interest to proceed any further.” 😉
Hmmmmm. Quite a lot to get in to here.
First observation. HOD is not same as VC. Perhaps at latter level there are levers to pull to avoid facing justice (if that is the real story here) but by contrast heads of department are pretty minor actors in the grand scheme of themes. “Little people” as you say.
Second observation. Higher the person, the more the incentive for media to do the job instead. The fact you are able to cite BBC news stories proves the point. The national media will report on their misdeeds and failures. That is not the same as a prison sentence, but it generates the investigatory capacity to uncover the evidence that prosecutors might eventually be forced to act upon. It is worth noting here that in the stories cited, press investigation is what put the issue on the CPS desk.
Third observation. These VCs were dismissed. Prof Marc Clement took his case to Tribunal for unfair dismissal. After three years of litigation, he lost the case. Also I think it is worth pointing out that, far from being “priotected” – the evidence suggests the university actually put pressure on the police for them to investigate him (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-61734261).
So nil desperandum – perhaps even VCs are disposable too.
Fair points.
So, have any Heads of Department gone to jail? In Cambridge, the HR department is the Praetorian Guard around the Head of Dept or Head of School.
I feel like “jail time” is quite a high bar. The first question is whether heads of department have been investigated before on criminal charges (and if so, on what grounds?) The second is what evidence came out and was it sufficient to land convictions and then, what kind of sentencing.
Remember, in general it is pretty rare for people to face individual criminal investigation for how they did their management job. Cases that lead to conviction typically involve some kind of really evident act of negligence that results in some clear and foreseeable loss of life. And that’s probably how it should be – especially when the problems are institutional rather than the fault of one individual role occupant.
Prosecutors also have to think about intention and their balance with alternative accountability mechanism. Intent, in that if you had a head of department acting in a way that clearly was motivated to cause serious harm to vulnerable people, then ok for that you might open an investigations file. Balance, as how the institution handles it matters a lot for whether crown has a role. In the Swansea case, I am guessing that part of the grounds not to proceed was related to it already being investigated, resulting in termination by the university. So while in theory a criminal investigation could have added some extra punishment, as the case was non-malicious (financial malpractice rather than intentional harm to individuals) that would be marginal on top of what was already delivered.
Final point is question of time, as justice moves slow. In the Post Office Scandal, the lawyers responsible are only being investigated now. Convictions won’t land this side of 2027. But they get there in the end. By dragging things out the Post Office caused so much damage that now only criminal convictions of the lawyers and consultants responsible will resolve the matter. But you need really, really deep organisational dysfunction for things to get that bad. In 95% of cases companies head this stuff off before ending up with the suicides, bankruptcies, and ruined lives that Horizon caused.
The house always wins.