In June 2025, two pressure groups — the 21 Group and For the 100 — announced that they were carrying out the first survey of both staff and students in UK Universities.
A description of the purpose of the CTRL+ALT+DEL+UNIVERSITY survey is given here. The survey has 17 questions about discrimination, bullying, harassment and lack of care. Whether staff or student, if you have been mistreated, then please tell us. We will be reporting the worst-performing universities to the regulators.
We have not finished data-taking. So please help us bring accountability to the seemingly untouchable elite who run our universities and complete the survey here
However, we have started to look at the data already gathered. We present the above infographic as a snapshot of the current state of play.
As judged by prevalence of discrimination, bullying, harassment and lack of care, the four worst universities are:
Cardiff University’s senior management has really outdone itself, even in a sector famous for grotesquerie. Faced with a £31 million black hole, the grand solution of Vice Chancellor Wendy Larner was, of course, to start hacking away at subjects like nursing, languages, music, ancient history and theology—as if a university’s role in educating society was just an inconvenient side project. It’s no wonder the staff are despairing.
Cambridge University’s problems with bullying & harassment have rarely been out of the newspapers all year. The pro Vice Chancellor will no doubt give his customary response that the University has zero tolerance to bullying — a statement delivered with impressive straight-faced sincerity while the actual bullying carries merrily on, entirely unacknowledged.
Dundee University’s former Vice Chancellor Iain Gillespie boasted of imaginary surpluses while driving the university into bankruptcy. His eventual admission of incompetence, padded with a six-figure golden goodbye, was less true contrition and more a victory lap at everyone else’s expense. Meanwhile, the governing body proved that inaction can be just as destructive as incompetence. The staff have suffered grievously at the hands of a semi-criminal senior management.
So the high rankings of these three universities are no big surprise.
The 21 Group does not know what is happening at the University of Strathclyde to warrant its very strong showing. It has been named 2025 UK University of the Year by the Daily Mail. Other than that misfortune, nothing has reached our ears.
We would be grateful for any information.
46 Comments
Xerxes · 23 August 2025 at 23:41
“The pro Vice Chancellor will no doubt give his customary response that the University has zero tolerance to bullying — a statement delivered with impressive straight-faced sincerity while the actual bullying carries merrily on, entirely unacknowledged and mainly done by his own HR department”
FTFY
https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-research-councils-2025-2-ukri-hr-staff-investigated-in-lengthy-bullying-probe/
It’s like UKRI, the bullying is being mainly done by out-of-control HR.
“Sources speaking on condition of anonymity told RPN about complaints of alleged bullying relating to seven members of the HR team. Of these, six HR staff are understood to have had one complaint about their conduct upheld, while findings of a report into the seventh individual are currently unknown.
One source said: “The organisation is being blighted by toxic bullying.
“It’s gaslighting, it’s aggressive, it’s trying to destroy people’s careers,” they said, describing the bullying as “relentless”.
People who gave evidence to the investigation said they witnessed or experienced behaviours including sexist comments, ridiculing, verbal abuse, deliberate undermining, belittling, isolation and exclusion.
One source said: “These individuals have very much caused hostile work environments in different ways across the organisation.
“This is so widespread and toxic, and so many people know about it, but it is sort of unspoken,” they added.
TheResearcher · 24 August 2025 at 09:48
Cambridge does not top the list?!?! That is a victory for its senior management.
It would be good to know the relative contribution of staff and students for these percentages, as well as how individual colleges ameliorate or worsen the situation. The allegedly “neutrality” of colleges when it comes to university problems is disturbing as they are surely aware of many malpractices, not least because most of their fellows are university staff, including senior management.
Regarding UKRI, people will not be surprised to know that some of its current senior management is from the University of Cambridge. It is perhaps coincidence that they use the very same narrative of taking cases seriously and with confidentiality, “We take all concerns raised by our staff seriously. We investigate and take action according to policy. In accordance with good practice, this includes strict confidentiality to protect all staff affected.” What a joke.
21percent.org · 24 August 2025 at 16:03
Cambridge does not top the list?!?! That is a victory for its senior management.
Well, Cambridge is way wealthier than Dundee and Cardiff (both teetering on bankruptcy & making 100s of staff redundant) and Strathclyde
So, if you ignore the fact it’s sitting on vast pile of wealth while Dundee, Cardiff, and Strathclyde aren’t … well done, Cambridge
TheResearcher · 24 August 2025 at 16:45
Not only money, but history and reputation. What this senior management is doing to an institution with more than 800 years is exasperating. We should all count with their response regarding this survey that it is not official but “defamation.” What we really need is a substantial number of victims, both staff and students, to come forward and tell their story publicly so that the “defamation” narrative is discredited. And we also need that members who have not been affected by the malpractices yet become aware of them so that they can better respond if they become exposed to them in the future.
SPARTACUS · 24 August 2025 at 21:52
American Queen and her oligarchy will destroy the University of Cambridge! After the grossly inadequate second rate Canadian lawyer we have a second class psychology academic! Lord Smith needs to do something! He knows the American Queen wanted Lord BP!
Trevor · 25 August 2025 at 08:10
That is such a good point about the esteemed centuries-long history of the university. When our founders stare down at the current management -from those dark, glowering portraits – I cannot help but imagine that they do so in revulsion, horror and utter disgust.
Tina · 24 August 2025 at 16:24
If the Cambridge management philosophy of “deny everything, resolve nothing, then spend millions on lawyers in a desperate bid to bury the abuse” has metastasized to the UKRI then Britain is truly broken
TheResearcher · 24 August 2025 at 17:33
As a person who interacted with both the senior management of Cambridge and UKRI, including its CEO and Executive Chair of Councils, as well as with their lawyers, Data Protection Officers, Complaints team, Communication Officers, Director of Risk and others, I can assure you that the behavioural practices are the same.
SPARTACUS · 24 August 2025 at 20:41
It has migrated! Look at one of the leads UKRI! Look at where he was before! Then ask yourself why his name appears in association with scandals at UXxxx…
SPARTACUS · 24 August 2025 at 21:55
Indeed it metastasized! From the Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine to the MRC!
TheResearcher · 24 August 2025 at 22:36
I was actually not thinking about the Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine. The CEO of UKRI until August 20 and the current Executive Chair of BBSRC are from the School of Biological Sciences and they are both aware of “The Story of the Snake — A Fable,” not least because the latter was the Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research at the time. It is likely that they both thought that the story was just a tale and that is why they ignored it, even though the researcher and the student of that story had UKRI funding.
SPARTACUS · 24 August 2025 at 01:10
UCam is run by an oligarchy that is only interested in keeping their power. Head of HR and Registrary act as executioners. American Queen, her team of ProVCs, and a cadre of Heads of School, Institute and Centre Directors, run a highly toxic environment and the place is doomed. New Chancellor must act!
SPARTACUS · 25 August 2025 at 00:39
UCam is rotten to the core! Clinical School, School of Biological Sciences, Institute of Astronomy, and more! The place is toxic, and losing character! American Queen presides over it all! New Chancellor must act!
Peter · 26 August 2025 at 08:30
It is disheartening to read this unnecessary, and unjustified bashing of the reputation of the welcoming and inclusive Institute of Astronomy, where staff, students and visitors gather twice-daily for free tea, coffee, and biscuits, over something that allegedly happened four years ago? Especially when an apology to one of the highly collaborative alleged victims would have probably resolved the issue. Please show some respect and for the current and past members of this friendly community.
Hetta · 26 August 2025 at 12:04
Peter, with all respect this does sound rather like the “I haven’t harassed all women” response to accusations of sexual misconduct.The issue is not whether some people are happily enjoying tea and biscuits. Rather it is whether all members of the community – biscuits aside – have been given a full right to the free and fair voice of concerns and for those to be investigated fairly (and where due, for amends to be made including the holding to account of all those culpable of wrongdoing).
In the absence of justice and accountability I can predict with certainty that many of those who feel happy now will (in future) join the ranks of the mistreated and unfairly abused. Which, as far as I can tell, seems now to encompass a truly staggering number of women and men at the university. To ignore this fact is gaslighting of the most horrible kind.
Peter · 28 August 2025 at 10:14
Dear Hetta,
I respect your right to disagree with my opinion, but I am disappointed by your disrespectful attack on me when I called out what I perceive as harmful behaviour. I agree with you that accountability for poor behaviour and the impact on others are very important. In the spirit of fairness and my right to raise concerns and the accountability that you advocate, I respectfully suggest that you carefully consider apologising for your disrespectful behaviour towards me and the impact of this behaviour me.
In my opinion, your behaviour towards is in contradiction with the published anti-bullying culture and values of the 21 per cent group published elsewhere on this website which are to campaign against behaviour which is perceived as inappropriate, unpleasant, unwanted and potentially harmful.
Hetta · 28 August 2025 at 10:53
Dear Peter,
Members of this community have experienced severe forms of harm and abuse that are supported by the reports of medical practitioners, together with quantifiable damages to income, research funding, and medical and legal costs.
I respect that you were likely unaware of this fact when making equivalence of your own feelings in response to a polite comment. You would also have been unaware of the additional harm that caused victims to see their hurt trivialised in such a manner.
But now that you are aware, I hope this will be taken in to consideration. I welcome your contribution to this exchange and looking forward to maintaining a polite conversation on these matters.
DARVO · 28 August 2025 at 12:31
Cambridge HR treat you like shit.
“When you provide quantifiable evidence that you’ve been treated like shit, we’ll deny it, attack you and reverse the victim and the offender.
Then you need to apologise and take the blame, for treating us like shit (or others by proxy) even though there is no evidence for any such shit, other than our feelings and our perceptions, our understandings and our measure of propriety.”
TheResearcher · 28 August 2025 at 13:36
Most likely people who write and read these posts know that one of the most common strategies of HR—with the tacit agreement of the senior management—is to invert the reports of victims or whistle blowers, namely when the misconduct involves very senior members. This may seem a very trivial strategy, but it is well executed as it is coupled with enforced confidentiality throughout. When victims or whistle blowers realize they were manipulated, it may well be too late because they are faced with an investigation against them that was developed during moths when they acted in good faith.
I think that all of us can fall into that trap once, but the fact this senior management expects we follow confidentiality again regarding subsequent cases really shows how basic these people are. Without confidentiality, their strategy does not fly, and it is up to all of us to remind them that there is no legal basis for such a “request.”
TheResearcher · 26 August 2025 at 11:57
In my view, the key problem is not in the members of these Schools, Institutes and Departments, but mainly on those who give advice to their local HR on how to deal with behavioural misconduct: Lead HR Business Partners, their line managers, and the senior management more generally who tacitly agree with their practices of concealing and manipulation of information.
SnakesAnd(L)adders · 26 August 2025 at 12:10
I fully agree with the Researcher.
Indeed, surely not just one but all the “highly collaborative alleged victims” (as referred to by Peter) would have deserved an apology? Have they ever received one? In this “welcoming and inclusive […] friendly community” which offers “twice-daily […] free tea, coffee, and biscuits”?
TheResearcher · 26 August 2025 at 12:55
I should say that I am not from the Institute of Astronomy, and do not even know the details of what happened there. What I do know very well is its Lead HR Business Partner and all her line managers because I interacted with them all for the last 27 months of my life. Their strategy is always the same. It only works because of their imposed confidentiality regarding our reports of misconduct, as well as on their notifications that we are going to be investigated. Incidentally, if you ask them about the legal basis of such an enforced confidentiality, they do not answer.
21percent.org · 26 August 2025 at 13:04
Anyone interested in events at the Institute of Astronomy will be able to fill their boots next year!
There is an Employment Tribunal from 1-28 June 2026 at Bury St Edmunds Tribunal.
It’s 4 weeks long, which gives an idea of the scale of the issues to be examined.
It is one of a number of forthcoming Tribunals involving Cambridge University.
TheResearcher · 26 August 2025 at 13:11
Let’s hope that the media show up as well!
Jay · 27 August 2025 at 08:16
“Let’s hope that the media show up as well!”
The University is lurching from crisis to crisis. The media will be there
The management of the University is becoming the story
TheResearcher · 27 August 2025 at 09:06
It is really unfortunate that we have to wait until mid-2026.
SnakesAnd(L)adders · 27 August 2025 at 09:34
“[…] Their strategy is always the same”
Sounds like a 🤔”highly collaborative” team – for want of better (or should one say “more appropriate”) words.
In fairness, c-words can get so easily mixed up, misunderstood, misread, misinterpreted: collaboration, cooperation, corroboration, collusion, corruption…
(…creating utter chaos, confusion, consternation, catastrophe, carnage, kaboom…)
TheResearcher · 27 August 2025 at 12:32
There is no doubt that they are a very collaborative team. Interestingly, if you copy them all in your emails, they often choose just one of them or a small subset to reply to you who will tell you that they have to following their duties of confidentiality and cannot cc the others, even if the others are their own line managers. I feel embarrassed with myself for not realizing this dynamics before and the fact that they keep telling me to follow confidentiality, really blows my mind.
Digitalis · 26 August 2025 at 09:01
The remarkable thing about events at the Institute of Astronomy is that those senior in the university who made the catastrophic mistakes in the handling of the matter are uninterested in the damage done to the staff, postdocs & students at the Institute of Astronomy.
They are interested merely in preserving & protecting their reputations by denying any errors.
As the matter is not yet over, it is hard to assess how much damage will ultimately be done. However, a major & unquantifiable one is the ‘lost opportunity cost’, the grants not applied for, & the research, teaching & learning not done while the matters remain unresolved.
Jay · 27 August 2025 at 13:56
University HR treat you like shit
Then when you object to being treated like shit, they say:
“We will not tolerate aggressive, abusive or threatening behaviour while we treat you like shit
And if you dare tell anyone that we have been treating you like shit, then you are in big trouble as you have broken confidentiality”
SPARTACUS · 27 August 2025 at 14:05
This is absolutely right! HE at UCam are the ‘executioners’! Some member of the oligarchy decides: student X or postdoc Y or faculty member Z are to be disposed of. HR and Registrary spring into action: 1- terrorise the target and muzzle him/her with confidentiality threats (if you speak that is a serious disciplinary offense); 2- HR identify a compliant Responsible Person (some of these now lead UKRI); 3- start the predetermined process of executing the target. There are many examples of this now, several of which will become public once Tribunal or Court case is adjudicate.
TheResearcher · 27 August 2025 at 14:25
Jay, this is so true. And do not forget that they keep reminding you along the way about the “precautionary measures” that you will get if you speak about your experiences, “to enable a full and fair investigation to be carried out.” This is an authentic circus, and it is hard to believe the situation is so bad until you experience it.
The fact this senior management thinks they can silence everyone really blows my mind as it suggests that they were never told that there are people out there who they cannot silence, regardless of what they do to intimidate them. I just wonder for how many years the situation has been like this and how many victims were forced to leave to avoid further damage.
Scopus · 27 August 2025 at 15:49
Sadly this has been the experience of many. The flaw in their logic is that while most victims were silenced some very prominent “ghosts of the past” managed to exit and rebuild stronger. A number are now situated in very prominent positions and have never forgotten it.
TigerWhoCametoET · 28 August 2025 at 18:12
I think there is an important point in this chain, which is that if a person has been treated in an uncivil manner – their complaints ignored, rules broken, and dignity violated – then it is legitimate and understandable if they respond in a manner that appears at first glance “uncivil” to those unfamiliar with the preceding chain of events. Yet such a reaction is justifiable in view of such circumstances and a reflection of the emotional state arising from how a person was mistreated. The correct response is not to dismiss difficult emotions, but to work to understand their origin, so as to work to fix the systemic failures that produced them. That is how good workplaces maintain norms of civility.
TheResearcher · 28 August 2025 at 19:37
“to those unfamiliar with the preceding chain of events.”
The issue is that no one knows unless they are directly involved!! The university keeps enforcing confidentiality so that they can do whatever they want in the background. Even when you explain that you already went through requests of confidentiality in the past and that it was used against you as it helped the senior management to conceal and manipulate information, they keep expecting confidentiality from you. It is really disturbing their expectation as if they lived in a parallel world. All this will make sense once the cases get public and people find the common trends.
Theo · 29 August 2025 at 01:05
Researcher – yes, confidentiality clauses are really toxic. I do understand that the whole premise is probably something like e.g. the need to protect people from false accusations. In theory that all sounds jolly sensible but actually even then, if you just let people air grievances openly, that would still work better as it would mean others getting involved, the accused being able to respond, and us all soon getting to the bottom of things. It is unpleasant but surely not the end of the world to voice things openly, and would in most cases resolve issues far sooner.
21percent.org · 29 August 2025 at 06:34
Confidentiality of ongoing grievances might be acceptable if the grievances are dealt with on timescales of weeks or a month or two (in accord with ACAS guidelines).
The problem arises when grievances take many months or years, normally because the University is intentionally delaying or protecting someone senior.
If you have been mistreated and are forced to remain completely silent for months or years, then this is a form of mental cruelty that can lead to further distress and damage.
The main beneficiary of confidentiality is HR, whose many mistakes and abuses are covered up.
TheResearcher · 29 August 2025 at 09:01
As the 21 Group knows, confidentiality is used in the University of Cambridge to conceal and manipulate information. This is a basic strategy, and it is disturbing to experience it in real time. But it is even more disturbing to see when many people witness it happening and do absolutely nothing to prevent it.
Confidentiality makes sense in an institution where HR and the senior management are honest but that is not the case in Cambridge. If victims allow the same narrative of confidentiality by the same people, that is called manipulation by consent.
Jeong · 29 August 2025 at 00:10
**This is an excellent point.
HR often use “civility” as a tool of retaliation against victims when they express their feelings of hurt and indignity (typically wrapped in the usual jargon – maintaining a culture of courtesy and respect, a “polite and friendly environment” and so on) so they can make this a case to use against them.
But failing to acknowledge expression of hurt is not only disrespectful in its own right, but undermines the honest communication that organisations need to function effectively and protect their staff.
In many circumstances individuals are right to express their pain so as to provide an appropriate alert that something is seriously wrong, and in need of urgent intervention. When airline pilots are in training, they are explicitly taught that if there is an emergency on board they should abandon norms of “politeness” and scream and shout to ground control to ensure that they get a proper reaction (otherwise, see the infamous “Avianca Flight 052” incident for an example as to why).
Exactly the same is true in the university environment. If a student or member of staff is experiencing distress that might endanger their health they are right to issue a call for help that provides a clear notification of the foreseeable risk. This should not be “polite”, “civil” or “friendly” as then it is likely to be dismissed. And certainly no-one should ever blame a victim for giving such notification instead of sounding the alarm for urgent action.
Meb · 29 August 2025 at 11:53
When I was an undergraduate, I knew a boy. The boy was called James. I liked James. James studied very hard. In fact he studied so hard, that he had dedicated an entire year of his life to exam preparation. He would rise in the morning at 6am and went to the library, and never left until late at night, not even for weekends or social events. Friends reported sighting James in the streets late at night, or ghosting the dorm hall corridors. But the only confirmed sighting I ever had of him was in the library, at his little table.
Two weeks after our final exams, I went to library to return a book. There I found James asleep at his study desk, surrounding by piles of books. The study books for his exam. The exam he had already taken. The exam he had passed two weeks earlier.
What had happened to James, was that the struggle had consumed him. Little by little as the months passed, James no longer kept up with friends, or went to parties, or even slept or ate with any consistency. All he had was the struggle. The constant preparation for The Exam.
So faced with a victorious end to his fight, James simply could not reintegrate. Little by little, preparation for battle had ceased to be a means to an end, but rather, became his very end in itself. Faced with the void of not knowing what other purpose to give his life, James could only return to the one thing he knew was certain.
This is what happens when you subject people to multi-annual grievance processes with no schedule, timeline, or logical end point. Like James and his Exam, we cease to be mentors, scholars, or researchers. Little by little we are all being retrained – mentally, morally, and technically – as specialists in permanent litigational fighting with the university. Now and forevermore.
Eventually James did leave the library and move on in life. Yet even if the university settled all grievances tomorrow it will forever reap this whirlwind. Without support to find their former meaning in life victims will endlessly launch successive waves of litigational warfare. Simply for having been left with no other reason to exist and no better specialism than such a form of combat. That is what happens when you subject people to years of grinding battle, then leave them with no support to rebuild the research careers and livelihoods that were destroyed and undermined.
TigerWhoCametoET · 29 August 2025 at 13:08
Thank you for posting this.
Anon · 29 August 2025 at 13:09
Imagine the same James, investing himself in endless revision, and taking his exams, only for a troll to rewrite his answers and mark them all a fail. James struggles on, retakes his exams and the troll continues its evil deed. Until eventually James pays to have the troll temporarily restrained, and finally, doubly exhausted by unnecessary re-takes, and with success and victory finally due, not to hard work in a trustworthy system, but to external justice, collapses, has psychotherapy and moves on with his life.
In the meantime, the troll has spotted another hardworking dedicated victim…
TheResearcher · 29 August 2025 at 13:29
Imagine the same James, revising for the same exam over and over while being sure that he had provided the correct answers from the very beginning. The real issue was not the troll who changed his answers in the background but all those who witnessing James struggling along the way, knowing how the situation was affecting his health and having access to his evidence, did absolutely nothing to help him. In the following year, the very same people attracted new students and reassured them that in their college they did not tolerate any form of abuses and that they should feel safe there.
P.S. · 30 August 2025 at 11:40
“In the meantime, the troll has spotted another hardworking dedicated victim…”
Because, in this imaginary tale, the troll’s release had been secured by the collaborative efforts of a team of crossbreeding snakes and adders who jointly authored the exculpatory prose.
The snakes were usually engaged with HR business but every so often would slither into legal advisory, barrister wordsmithing or “adder” mode. The adders were engaged in-house as legal advisors but would lend a hand with those independent HR investigations, of which there seemed to be an increasingly alarming number.
And so it came to be that the effecting of justice and fairness, as prescribed by the Big Ancient Book of Rules, as the foundation for all the action-taking and all the decision-making, remained elusive, and that the “trolling” of all the hard working and all the truly dedicated, could happily proceed.
AttilatheProf · 29 August 2025 at 13:16
Agreed — it is an excellent post from Meb
A class action against Cambridge University may be possible for those whose research careers and livelihoods have been destroyed and undermined by its HR department.
Even better would be to carry out the class action in the US (against Cambridge in America) as the damages would then be enormous. We’d need about 40 people for a class action — interested?
Eileen Nugent · 7 September 2025 at 17:57
Whilst my livelihood was brought to the point of being destroyed and I now do need to rebuild it I took the decision not to take any actions of this type. I will not now or in future take any actions of this type – actions that could create any level of uncertainly as to intent in my particular case. The intent was to raise a case in the public interest and to comply with legal obligations to the University of Cambridge in alignment with the public interest and based on the fundamental legal principles of fairness and reasonableness.
The reason for this decision in my case is that the public interest aspect of the case was significant and as a result I had a significant set of legal obligations. This meant that public interest considerations and compliance with a set legal obligations dwarfed all self-interest considerations and I therefore scaled back any self-interest considerations to the minimum – protection of absolute human rights.
It was my understanding that the public interest aspects of any case have to be analysed as accurately as possible as any inaccuracies in the analysis of the public interest aspects of a case could have significant implications for other individuals and for society. For this reason I did not pursue any type of case that had potential to focus analysis of the case on self-interest aspects [employment tribunal, participation in class action] to the detriment of a proper analysis the public interest aspects of the case – this was to avoid any intent ambiguity, ambiguity over the type of case being raised – public interest or private interest – and to avoid taking actions that could in any way interfere with the analysis of the public interest aspects of the case.
My own analysis of what it meant to raise a public interest case and to comply with a legal obligation was that compliance meant generating accurate information about a problem in the public interest, information that could then be used to reform and strengthen both the legal entity that generated the public interest case and any other legal entities to which any legal obligations arose during the course of raising that public interest case.
I experienced an unsafe situation – whistleblowing – that was unsafe because neither the subject of that whistleblowing – regulation of work and education-related stress – nor whistleblowing itself and the efficient handling of whistleblowing cases were well understood. This forced me to build a more complete understanding of – the regulation of work and education-related stress and whistleblowing – after which I was able to efficiently minimise the safety risk in this situation. Whistleblowing as a situation carries a safety risk independent of all other factors e.g. organisational efficiency of handling whistleblowing concerns. The most effective way to mitigate any risk is to understand it.
I experienced this unsafe situation in an organisation that had reached an unsafe state because problems had started accumulating in the organisation without sufficiently detailed analysis to find accurate solutions. My judgement was that the top leadership of the organisation was safe i.e. had the judgment to analyse these organisational problems and to solve them. There seemed however to be an impenetrable blob in the middle of the organisation that meant it was impossible for those with significant problems that were potentially indicative of an organisational fault to interact with the people in the organisation who were most capable of analysing and solving that type of organisational problem. This prevented an accurate dynamic awareness of organisational problems emerging at the level required in the organisation to analyse and solve such problems and any effective continuous improvement mechanisms from being established in the organisation.
The middle of the organisation which appeared to be the most significant source of the organisational problems – seemed to become increasingly opaque – the greater the drive for transparency on it from both the top and the bottom of the organisation. The emergence of an opaque blob in an organisation – in the drive for the increased levels of organisational transparency necessary to efficiently solve organisational problems in situations where the rate of accumulation of organisational problems starts to increase – is a problem that has the potential to snowball and to stop all other problems in the organisation from being solved. In taking actions in relation to my own case I tried to avoid actions that were likely to increase the risk of this particular type of organisational problem emerging – opaque blob in the middle of the organisation that stops other organisational problems from being solved – and I avoided all types of legal action where the primary focus of the legal action would not have been examining whether the organisation was acting in its own best interests and in the interests of the public.
I am setting out the reasons for the particular decisions that I made in relation to my particular case. Each case is different and it’s up to each individual to work out what the best course of action is in their particular case.