When Human Resources is Corrupt

Why it Matters in the Seismic Industry

'Corruption: dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people.' ~ Merriam-Webster

'Oh, what a tangled web we weave…when first we practice to deceive.' ~ Walter Scott


What happens when human resources is corrupt?

During a down cycle in an industry, and amid times of economic uncertainty especially, corporate human resources (HR) departments can hold substantial influence over personal lives. With such influence also comes the opportunity to abuse power and wield such influence in nefarious ways. As a scientist for the majority of my career, HR served as an innocuous backdrop. HR collected my timesheets, distributed payroll slips, insurance and pension optimization plan information, and they filed assessments conducted by my supervisors. In the article, Why the Path to Ethics Starts with Human Resources, author Chris MacDonald states that HR is ground zero for company culture. I agree.

HR publishes company policy, values, and procedures. However, my benign impression of HR was completely transformed through the experience with a past employer. Since then, I have read extensively about HR, including accounts of HR behaving badly, which opened my eyes. I have come to the conclusion that, fundamentally, HR functions to support the organization hierarchy. An HR which supports the organization hierarchy is not too surprising and is as it should be. If the hierarchy is fair and honest, so too is HR.

Conversely, however, if the hierarchy is corrupt, then so too is HR. A corrupt HR is used to purge the ranks from power liabilities, such as the honest up-and-comer on a top manager’s coat tails, or any honest person too close to the truth, such as a whistle blower, or a bully target who challenges managerial competency and integrity.

HR does not have the power to displace the corrupt hierarchy that employs them. It should be relatively simple for an ethical hierarchy to rid themselves of a knave employee. Corrupt hierarchies are regimes who conspire, cooperate and protect one another. Fundamentally, workplace bullying is the abuse of power. Abuse of position is a category of fraud, as are false representation and withholding of information, which are all usually associated with fiduciary malfeasance, rather than the misuse and abuse of human resources.

I believe that bullies are not individuals, but regimes supported by an organization’s formal power structures. HR will shield managerial corruption and incompetence and use their legitimate guise to extricate threatening (to the corrupt or incompetent hierarchy) personnel. Within unethical and toxic organizations, a corrupt HR is empowered and enabled as the enforcer to protect the company proverbial cosa nostra. In fact, for corrupt organizations, a corrupt HR is practically essential.

For me, this prose is personal.  However, what I have learned is that it shares an all too common theme for many disenfranchised workers who take stands against unprincipled work practices.  It is the reasonable people who are often made out to be unreasonable.  I wrote about how I came to discover, and know with certainty, about the unethical practices of my former employer in the LinkedIn Pulse article, An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data.”   
[Note: Linkedin removed original Article by Steve Kalavity: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/american-uk-data-protection-act-petroleum-tyranny-steven-kalavity?trk=pulse_spock-articles]
 
As an American working in England, my former marine seismic company employer’s HR manager had the brazen audacity to create and retain an entire mythology of my work history. I suppose it is because I upset the hierarchy by essentially saying “enough is enough.”  Without my knowledge, and in spite of several requests for more substantive information, the HR Manager compiled a collection of unsigned, falsified, and forged documents which he had the imperiousness to call my professional personnel file.

Because it is my belief that these falsehoods have been shared throughout the HR back-channels, as I cannot conceive of any other utility for them matching his character, I brought my knowledge of these activities to light.  There would be absolutely no advantage for me to publish ungrounded allegations of a former employer.  However, I feel that I need to write about my experience to defend and preserve my personal dignity and reputation for myself and my family, as well as enlighten the broader community.  I am determined to challenge the false narrative economically focusing on the truth rather than addressing damages in English court.  Such a challenge would be time consuming, expensive, and logistically difficult. 

Also, to prove the points to any (uncertain economic) benefit is not my priority so much as the truth of the matter.  However, it would be impossible for my previous employer to prove otherwise.  Nonetheless, the false documents and/or contents mentioned are in my possession, as well as have been shared with UK and Norwegian government compliance organizations, if they so choose to investigate compliance to their national laws and acts.  Truth has patience.

I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed.   ~  Jonathan Swift  The reason that it is important to bring attention to the iniquitous behaviors of employers within the seismic industry, or other sectors for that matter, is because nothing is done in isolation.  The companies, employees, and communication channels are all connected.  When companies decide to pollute their company records, and the marine seismic and larger geophysical community or sector, with false information about ex-employees, it serves only the self-interest of incompetent or corrupt leadership.  When high level executives cooperate to use the financial leverage provided from customers, shareholders, and other employees to make challenging wrong-doing exceptionally difficult, these decisions devalue every aspect of a company.  Should management be able to vilify me, or other employees, professionally when the company top executives are the ones who lie and malign?

It is those who lack the courage to abide by the policies which they articulate, who deceive, withhold, and then falsify documents who are the ones that should be ashamed.  And it should be the company and its executives who condone such egregious practices that should be out of work, and not the targets of abused power.  That is how business should work.  I am directly familiar with the events which have affected me personally.  However, the culture and character of the organization hierarchy suggests that I was likely not the first person to be the target of such abominations.  From my review of literature, this behavior is not exceptional – unfortunately – and transcends sector and industry.

This is the same culture and character which makes decisions about how to handle other employees concerns contrary to their own policies and which also forms decisions about who is to be retained or made redundant in a down cycle.  This same culture and character form several other “strategic” business decisions, up through preparing and signing multi-million dollar contracts with oil and gas license operators.

If senior management is willing to conspire, lie, and falsify documents to deal with what should be a relatively simple problem to control or solve, had they only effectively applied their own policies and been responsible, what would keep any company from corrupting the outcome of other unfavorable health and safety or other controversial information?  Should we be resigned to allow such companies to just change the rules whenever they cannot “win” on their terms?  It is all connected.  The problem is that such behaviors are all too common today globally, and it has impact on the greater global economic culture of business. 

Cheaters are holding onto their jobs, even being further rewarded, while honest, capable and committed workers are losing their jobs and livelihoods directing the sector on the wrong course by use of a broken moral compass. Corrupt organizational hierarchies are making bad business decisions and then using HR to formally facilitate personnel actions to hide their incompetence.  This reality negatively effects quality, health and safety, and the environment.  It impacts employees, customers, and investors.  It effects the entire seismic industry and beyond, and it needs to be stopped.  Hopefully, informing business sector stakeholders will facilitate this change.

With most people disbelief in a thing is founded on a blind belief in some other thing. ― Georg C. Lichtenberg

I never thought that I would ever work under such dishonest and manipulative management hierarchy as I did.  I worked within the contract sales group in England concentrating on Africa projects.  When I voiced health and safety concerns and believed that I was being bullied by my boss, management’s reaction had me in disbelief.  There is a lot of literature about workplace bullying and it is not an altogether exceptional issue to come across these days.  In fact, it is a serious issue mentioned within the company handbook as something that is not tolerated.  Countries are passing workplace bullying legislation affecting global workplaces.  One would think (or hope) that high level human resource professionals and executives would want to be in tune with this knowledge and possess the acumen to listen and address such concerns professionally and be able to arrive at some mutually advantageous solution if such issues arose.

After all, stress, harassment and bullying are the most highly ranked workplace hazards within the UK, where I was working.  I was not actually familiar with the term “workplace bullying” until I started to try and put a name on the unreasonable and derisive management practices which I was enduring.  The silence, misinformation, and deception all around me was the most difficult part to absorb.  My direct interaction with human resources throughout my career had been minimal until my England assignment.  I had never experienced anything close while working for the U.S. Department of Defense where keeping information secret was in fact part of the team’s job.

To make a long story short, it was never officially resolved whether I was bullied.  But, it was neither resolved that I hadn’t been bullied.  We agreed to part ways.  I wanted to leave the inhospitable and uncomfortable situation behind me, and so I moved back to America, along with my family.  Top management had done just about everything possible to avoid dealing with the issue directly.

Over time, what I have become completely certain of, in my case, is that the HR manager responsible for compiling my file is a liar and a coward.  However, his actions were wholly empowered and supported by top management, who apparently share his level of character.  The senior vice president of HR and current executive vice president of operations, who reside at the parent company headquarters in Norway, created and signed a forged memo which was added to my professional personnel records.  The memo presented false assertions that a conclusion regarding my bullying issue had been reached.  In fact, nothing could have been further from the truth.  This high level power team demonstrated no interest in dealing with my issue on a professional level according to the company’s policies and procedures. Yet, they continue to project a narrative where they essentially won the argument.  This is unacceptable.

Through all of this, they were in fact willing to endanger my health and well-being to maintain and project authority.  There was never an interest for an objective review of the situation and no dialogue.  I would have never brought-up such mistreatment and company departure from process and procedure at such a high level without some chronicle of reasons or episodes to support my claims.  There was plenty of information presented that the senior management team could have reasonably considered and reported on.   During the same period, management requested an independent report from an occupational health professional.  I discovered it through a separate Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) subject access request.  

The senior management knowingly withheld this report from me while I was employed and considering my exit.  They also responded to me and the compliance agency that such a report was never provided to them when I made my subject access request.  They had lied to me and likely to the compliance agency.  I believe that management took advantage of the fact that I was from America and required company sponsorship to remain in determining how to address my issue.  Management colluded to make my work conditions more unbearable so I would not want a prolonged confrontation and have to remain in England any longer.  They were correct that I did not want to stay in England surrounded by such dishonest and manipulative hosts.  They used this to their advantage as they averted protocols and delayed decisions until I finally agreed to leave and not press the issue any further.  And then top management had the false narrative follow me to America polluting the seismic industry community.  They were likely surprised by my DPA subject access request.

The senior management completely abrogated their responsibility as prescribed in policy.  They demonstrated no leadership or ability to discuss difficult issues whatsoever.  Instead, they created falsified documents to form a suitable written mythology to place into my personnel file.  Through guidance and cooperation from the company top executives, HR changed dates and left out or embellished events – the entire history of my final months of employment – to make things appear as though some semblance of policy and procedure was followed when it was not.  They left out any of my disagreements to their unsubstantiated narrative leaving a completely one-sided –false – narrative.

This shameful behavior was not only supported, but rewarded during a year with reduced earnings.  Since shedding light on my circumstances, high level scientists working for my former employer and anonymous others have viewed my LinkedIn profile.  I have encouraged the identifiable one’s to look into my file and check my personnel file and claims for themselves.  People of honor would want to defend their character.  
[Link: https://www.pgs.com/Pressroom/Press_Releases/Petroleum-Geo-Services-ASA--Implementation-of-2015-Employee-Long-term-Incentive-Plan-/ now found in Archive:
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20150623063426/https://www.pgs.com/Pressroom/Press_Releases/Petroleum-Geo-Services-ASA--Implementation-of-2015-Employee-Long-term-Incentive-Plan- ]

Expectedly, there has been no response, only the typical silence and avoidance from confronting truth.  Apparently, it was not enough for the hierarchy to take away my career, they also wanted to steal my identity and rewrite history so that it should be difficult that I ever have one again.  This tale of events would have never been shared had I not come to discover the true hubris and vindictiveness of my former employer’s senior management through a UK Data Protection Act 1998 subject access request.  Without the leverage of certainty, I would have never known without doubt the distortions and would have been obliged to silence assuming accurate records, as both the DPA and ethical practices require, were being retained.


 It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently. ~ Warren Buffett
 
My narrative, while unique, is not altogether exceptional.  Change the company and some particulars, and the behaviors and character of how issues of bullying and whistle-blowing are dealt with have a common theme.  Power structures will align themselves and protect their domains by all means.  Fairness is a side issue only read about in HR columns removed from the real world.  We find trust in business relationships at an all-time low, while management hubris and abuse of positions seems to be at an all-time high. Why?  The common reaction to those who expose corruption or management incompetence is to purge the messenger.  Management will conspire to lie, cheat, and yes, endanger worker lives, to maintain their power and position. 

Psychologists David DeSteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo conducted several experiments showing time and again that 90% of people – mostly of whom identify themselves as morally upstanding – will act dishonestly to benefit themselves if they believe that they will not be caught.  Further to this, people will rationalize their own dishonesty while condemning the dishonesty of others.  In other research by Paul Piff, it was found that with increased power and status there is a decrease in honesty and reliability.  Psychologist Robert Feldman believes people are motivated to lie not necessarily to impress others, but to maintain a view of themselves consistent with the way that they want others to view them. 

In the workplace, self-esteem and threats to the executive’s sense of self are drivers for lying.
Executives want to look good in the company and this is closely tied with the fact that people appear to be short-term focused when they decide to deceive someone.  While individuals work to sustain their self-image and self-worth in the short term, if the deceived individual finds out it can have long-term consequences.   I hope that this is what is happening now.  Within an organization with a fair and ethical management system, if managers have the legitimate formal power, along with the appropriate processes to handle employee issues, there would be no need to risk lying and damaging the organizations reputation. 

According to research cited by consultant and speaker Margaret Heffernan, 85% of surveyed US and UK executives avoid dealing with issues that might provoke conflict.  These executives did not want to be challenged because they were afraid to get embroiled in arguments that they did not know how to manage, and felt that they were bound to lose.  Couple this with a propensity for high-level executives to preserve their self-identity through lying and many events become easier to explain, while not necessarily easier to accept.


Human resources is too often used as a punitive function to protect and hide organization leadership and managerial corruption and incompetence. This negatively impacts and corrupts the entire organization culture.  This results in sub-optimal organization and system performance in all areas impacting quality, health and safety, and environment.  Organizations who misuse the human resource function blemish the majority of honest and competent HR professionals and the positive contributions that they can provide to organizations when counseled properly. 

When a positive work culture is allowed to be destroyed from within and hijacked by management of misrepresentation, blame, and distortion, then employees, customers, and shareholders, as well as the entire industry pay the price.  When top managers are not obliged to follow the policies and values that the company advocates, these counter-cultural norms are then embraced to form a debased work culture.  In the modern business environment, we are all connected in some way.  Human resources is the center of organization culture.  Human resources articulate and publish company values and policy for common understanding.  How companies deal with workplace conflict, such as claims of harassment, bullying, discipline and grievance processes, etc. is a much better measure of company culture.  How these events are recorded and resolved along with third-party survey data would provide more information than a company’s printed mission statements and values to license operators who contract them.  Gauging contractor cultures compatibility with operator cultures will also reduce project risks. 

Many business and project failures are due to incompatible work cultures working ineffectively toward incongruent objectives.  As it was written, the path to ethics starts with human resources.  It often ends there too.

You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know. ~ William Wilberforce

Source: http://linkis.com/nopgs.com/psUZT


'Great Spirit' - Nahko and Medicine For The People

Bullying leads to a dozen water police officer resignations, whistleblower claims

David Hurley, Herald Sun

November 27, 2016 7:00pm

AN exodus of experienced Water Police officers has left the unit exposed and will put lives at risk this summer, a whistleblower says.

The squad has been hit by accusations of bullying and mismanagement, causing officers to go and leaving some recruits unqualified to drive all the boats in the unit’s fleet.

An insider told the Herald Sun the unit, which has about 50 officers, has lost a dozen during the past 18 months because of “a toxic culture”.

Five officers have joined the Australian Border Force while others have transferred elsewhere within Victoria Police.

One officer was bullied to the point where he developed an alcohol problem and drank before starting his shifts as a coping mechanism, according to the whistleblower.
“Members who have left possess thousands of sea days of experience,” he said.
“There is now a massive skill shortage and lives could be in danger.”

It’s claimed:

A SENIOR officer publicly referred to a junior officer’s deaf son as a “retard”.

THE same officer took photographs of a drunk female colleague at a Christmas party and showed the pictures to the unit’s morning shift crew the next day.

THE senior officer, who has since left the unit, would also visit mussel merchants at Williamstown Pier and Portarlington and demand they donate a box of mussels for “the boys” at the Water Police.

In a statement Victoria Police said it had investigated the allegations and found them to be unsubstantiated.

In a letter sent to IBAC, the whistleblower wrote: “I write to you with a genuine concern about the rapid increase in systemic bullying, that has consistently occurred ...

“The pattern of behaviour, spanning in excess of 12 months ... continues to escalate beyond acceptable levels of workplace bullying, usually tolerated in a state government workplace.”

Another source told the Herald Sun:

“We are supposed to be on the same side ... this is the police.
“Morale in the Water Police is at an all-time low.

“It is ruled like a dictatorship. Management have swept these issues under the carpet.”

Victoria Police spokesman Inspector Ian Geddes said: “All staff are trained and supported to achieve relevant qualifications and experience during their tenure at the Water Police. The Water Police has and will have into the future appropriate levels of trained and qualified personnel to carry out the duties required.

“Sufficient numbers of qualified people are maintained to perform the required function and operate the vessels as required. “As a result of an allegation of workplace bullying, a workplace cultural review of the Water Police was conducted.

“As a result of this review it was identified that concerns raised did not amount to workplace bullying.”

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/bullying-leads-to-a-dozen-water-police-officer-resignations-whistleblower-claims/news-story/0564f54adc0806e4cf9f32049c556d26

MONSTER MANAGERS - Profiling Types of Monster Bosses

Monsters are real — as anyone who has ever worked for a nightmare manager can attest. Here we look at the qualities that distinguish a good boss from a bad one, and ways to avoid becoming a monster in the workplace.

Most monsters are frightening but fictional. However, we sometimes encounter a person who seems to have been pulled directly from our nightmares, and this is especially frightening when that person turns out to be our boss. A broad range of traits can make a manager seem monstrous, but that doesn't mean they're unique in their awfulness. In fact, it can be comforting to note that plenty of employees have to deal with nightmare bosses every day.

"These days there are websites where you can post horror stories about your boss, commiserate with other long-suffering subordinates or even e-mail your boss an anonymous letter telling him or her just how ineffectual he or she is," CFO Daily News explains. "Seems there's an epidemic of bad bosses out there."

The workplace can be a surprisingly spooky place. According to a survey from CareerBuilder.com, 18 percent of workers described their workplace as frightening. Based on a poll of 4,000 employees, here are the most common types of monsters — not all of them bad — workers said their bosses resemble:

• Glenda the Good Witch — Someone liked and respected by nearly everyone in the office (20 percent);
• The Wolf Man — A boss who's fine one minute and then terrible the next (11 percent);
• The Invisible Man — People notice that this boss is never around (10 percent);
• Casper the Friendly Ghost — A boss who is eager to help others, but is often misunderstood (9 percent);
• Dracula — This boss simply sucks the life out his employees (6 percent);
• Wicked Witch of the West — Unlike Glenda, this boss is conniving and has an army of underlings performing dirty work (5 percent);
• The Mummy — A slow-moving boss with an ancient management style (4 percent);
• The Grim Reaper — One who is constantly delivering bad news and inspiring fear among the staff (3 percent); and
• Frankenstein — A boss who's green with envy (1 percent).

Although many employees are dissatisfied with work conditions, problems with their bosses generally stem from a handful of specific problems that point to a fundamental disconnect between management and staff. An inability to listen is one of the key factors preventing a boss from engaging with employees.

"On one hand, there is the blabbermouth theory of leadership. In Western cultures, the person who talks the most is viewed as having the highest status. And interrupting people is a way to seize power," Robert Sutton, a professor in Stanford University's department of management science and engineering, told Inc.com. "Certainly talking is more pleasant than listening. But most bosses ought to shut up and listen more."

Listening is crucial not only because it improves relationships with employees, but also because it allows a manager to pick up on workplace details that he or she may not have noticed (or wanted to notice) before.

"One thing most bad managers have in common is they're not consciously aware that they're bad managers," BNET explains. "And if they are aware of it on some level, they're probably not willing to admit it to anyone, least of all themselves. That's because nobody wants to believe they're the problem."

So, as a manager, how can you tell if your employees view you as a bad boss? Sutton, writing at the AMEX OPEN Forum, offers the following signs that your reputation as a manager may be slipping:

• You look out for yourself and everyone else is an afterthought;
• You're hard on your workers because you think they'll screw up without your "guidance";
• You transmit but don't receive, mostly just pretending to listen to others;
• You never say "thanks" or "please" because it's a waste of time;
• You're a stickler for punishment, so your workers know when they make a mistake they'll pay for it;
• You never mess up, or in other words, never admit to messing up;
• You take all the credit, regardless of how much you contributed to the work;
• You don't tolerate dissent, making life hard for anyone who dares to disagree with you;
• You focus on your top performers, making sure they get the best of everything while everyone else is ignored;
• You only care about the big ideas, because the small stuff, like implementation or practical considerations, are beneath you; and
• You don't care what it's like to work for you, and if employees are dissatisfied, too bad.

No one wants to be a bad boss, but these traits can be hard to recognize in oneself. When performance begins to lag, employees become disinterested in their work or the atmosphere in the workplace becomes noticeably uncomfortable, signs point to a problem that management needs to address.

"You can tell if you're making mistakes as a leader because things go wrong — not just one catastrophic computer snafu but repeated errors," CNN.com explains. "Bad bosses turn away from these realities. They don't discuss problems; they just hunker down and hope the issue will go away. It won't. Untreated, a minor concern becomes a major issue becomes a catastrophe."

So what qualities define a good boss? According a recent survey from staffing firm Adecco, the types of leadership employees most desired were "visionary" (23 percent) and "democratic," (23 percent) meaning that workers want managers who set out clear, achievable goals and accomplish them with close collaboration and feedback from their employees. Moreover, 88 percent of employees said a good boss jumps right in to important projects and helps the team get the job done.

"Ultimately, the secret to being a 'best boss' isn't all that mysterious — employees respect bosses who work as hard as they do," Adecco explains. "They value constructive criticism regarding their work and they appreciate having a friendly relationship with their boss, but they don't feel the need to be 'friends' outside of work (or even online) with them. Employees want a boss who encourages a healthy work-life balance, while also practicing what they preach in leading by example."

source

PAPER - AUSTRALIA: Casual approach to the academic workforce

The response of Australian academics to the Changing Academic Profession survey indicates that they are among the least satisfied academics in the world. This dissatisfaction has been expressed after two decades of rapid growth in the student body and structural changes in the academic workforce, particularly an expansion in the amount of teaching provided by casual staff. Growth in casual staff numbers is a factor that has simultaneously created a precariously employed but cheaper and more flexible workforce along with higher levels of stress among the full-time teachers responsible for managing and supervising casual teachers.

The academic profession has an important role to play in creating a highly educated workforce for Australia and in generating export income by teaching international students. Careful attention needs to be paid to this situation, especially in light of the need to replenish the ageing academic workforce.

To see the four figures mentioned in the following text, it is necessary to purchase the paper from the centre.

Introduction

The Australian university system has grown considerably over the last two decades. The so-called massification [1] of Australian higher education, the result of policies introduced by education minister John Dawkins in the 1980s, saw a large increase in the university student population. Between 1989 and 2007, the number of students enrolled in courses at Australian universities increased from 441,000 to over one million.

In the last couple of years, movement from a mass to a universal system [2] has been initiated following recent growth plans announced for Australia's higher education sector [3]. These reforms have set a target of 40% of Australia's 25 to 34 year old age group attaining a bachelor degree by 2025.

Yet staff numbers, and particularly teaching staff numbers, have failed to keep pace with growth in student enrolments. For the purposes of this paper, 'teaching staff' include staff in academic positions classified by their universities as either 'teaching only' or 'teaching and research' staff, and working in academic departments. 'Research only' academics and academics who work outside academic departments have not been counted as 'teaching staff'.

Figure 1 has been constructed from national higher education statistics [4]. It compares the increase in the number of equivalent full-time students and teaching staff, and the extent of the widening gap between student and staff numbers is plain. Numbers have been expressed as 'full-time equivalent' (FTE) in order to control for students or staff who attend or work less than full-time, such as part-time students or casual staff. Between 1989 and 2007, there was an increase of about 376,000 full-time equivalent students, from about 350,000 to nearly 726,000 in 2007 (including around 197,000 international students). This is an increase of about 107%.

In the same period teaching staff increased by about 8,400 from 25,060 full-time equivalent staff in 1989 to 33,496 in 2007, an increase of about 34%. These figures include all teaching staff, including those employed under casual contracts. On top of the number of teaching academics, universities had about 9,850 non-teaching academic staff in 2007, including about 9,200 research only staff and about 660 full-time equivalent academic staff working in support and central administration departments.

The lag in the increase in teaching staff numbers has led to an increase in the ratio of students to teaching staff from almost 14 per teacher to nearly 22, even when casual staff are included. Of course, this carries implications not just for students but also for the way in which academics experience their work environment and the way in which institutions are managed in a rapidly changing environment.

The academy's changing structure

It is clear from Figure 1 that the somewhat flat growth in staff numbers has been far exceeded by the growth in the size of the student body. However, there has also been a change in the composition of the teaching body, particularly relating to its members' contractual arrangements with universities.

Figure 2 shows the size of the university teaching staff between 1989 and 2007 and the proportions with continuing appointments (including those on probation and those with confirmed appointments), those with time-limited appointments (reported by universities according to the number of months of the contract term), and those who were casually (sometimes called 'sessionally') employed.

As can be seen, casual staff have provided the majority of the growth in teaching staff. All in all, since 1989 the number of university teachers increased by 8,435 FTE, of which more than half were casual staff. Casual staff numbers increased from 3,162 to 7,440, about 135%. Further, as a proportion of all teaching staff, casual staff have increased from 12.6% of the total in 1989 to 22.2% in 2007. The 20% threshold was crossed in 1999.

By contrast, the proportion of continuing staff decreased from 63.6% to 59.3%, and the proportion of contract positions decreased from 23.8% to 18.5%. The shift from contract to continuing appointments from 1998 to around 2005 reflects the establishment and subsequent disestablishment of the Higher Education Conditions of Employment (HECE) Award. Notably, this did not reduce the expansion of FTE numbers of staff employed casually.

In summary, between 1989 and 2007, student numbers more than doubled during a period in which the number of teaching staff other than casuals increased by only 19%, and the overall student to teacher ration blew out from 14:1 to 22:1.

The influences of casualisation

The above analysis outlined how the teaching academic workforce has failed to keep up with growth in student numbers. To the extent that there has been growth in teaching staff numbers, the main response from institutions over the last decade has been through a consistent casualisation of the academic workforce. Discussions of casualisation generally focus on casually-employed staff, and studies have examined issues from this perspective. However, casualisation itself is not the main focus of this paper, but rather the perceptions of academic staff about how changes in the academic profession have affected them.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in its 2009 report Measures of Australia's Progress shows that the casual staff issue in the university sector cannot be isolated from broader trends in Australian society [5]. The report provides an analysis of changes in work conditions over time, noting the strong growth in the number of casual employees over the last two decades. The ABS also notes that the pace of change has slowed in recent years and based on a comparison with higher education casual staff statistics, it would seem that the overall proportion of casual staff has levelled out earlier in the university sector than in the workplace overall [6].

However, structural changes in the academic workplace should be considered. In fact, much of the teaching in the modern university is now provided by casual staff. Percy et al have noted that "sessional teachers are the hidden part of the massification that has taken place in higher education in Australia over the last 30 years...Between 40 and 50% of teaching in Australian higher education is currently done by sessional staff" [7].

Even though the ABS notes that the increase in casualisation is seen by many employers and employees as being a beneficial thing, this view does not match the debate on the subject within the university sector. According to the ABS report, some employees (women and the young in particular) welcome the flexibility brought by casual employment [8]. However, many casual staff could be placed in the category of aspiring academics and most desire full-time (preferably continuing) positions. In response to a direct question on the preference for casual appointments in her study on casual staff in universities, Junor found that only 28% of casual academics said that this mode of employment was their first choice [9].

Although casual employment means under-employment or precarious employment for many staff, this is not universally the case. Using the typology outlined by Gappa and Leslie, the casual academic workforce also includes people doing sessional teaching as an extension of their regular professional life, and retired full-time academics eager to keep their hand in and make a contribution [10].

From the perspective of both continuing and contract staff and casual staff, Lazarsfeld-Jensen and Morgan offer a very pertinent comment:

"Casualisation has a profound impact on tenured staff. They must recruit and manage teachers who in turn have no access to training or support, and whose role is constrained by a minimalist contract system. Last minute recruitment was often based on prior relationships, which casuals felt opened them up to excessive demands and bullying because of their financial vulnerability. There is insecurity on both sides with neither feeling able to create parameters for the relationship or the work. It is not unusual for a full time academic to work exclusively with casuals, and for casuals to have no relationships within the university beyond their immediate supervisor and the person who handles their pay [11]."

The CAP survey and job satisfaction

The essence of this paper is that Australian academics are less positive about their profession than before. This information comes from the Changing Academic Profession (CAP) survey, an international survey conducted in 25 countries in 2007. CAP is the largest such research project conducted to date. CAP data provide the context for assessing the attractiveness of the academic profession in Australia as well as offering an international angle, which is important given the highly internationalised and mobile nature of academic work. The International Centre for Higher Education Research (INCHER) at the University of Kassel in Germany is coordinating the construction of the international database.

Using a common questionnaire, population definition and sampling approach, CAP sought the opinions of academics in each participating country. A total of 1,370 valid responses were received from full-time and fractional full-time academics at 20 Australian universities, that is from staff on both continuing and contract appointments but not from casuals.

According to the CAP survey, with the exception of academics from the United Kingdom, Australian academics are the least job-satisfied of all. This paper examines Australian responses relating to overall job satisfaction and compares them with responses from 18 of the 25 participating countries that had supplied data at the time of writing. The paper contends that in the Australian context, the additional burdens imposed by a much larger university sector, and increased workloads generated for permanent staff through casualisation, is a major contributing factor.

Figure 3 provides mean scores of a composite scale consisting of items measuring satisfaction with academic work, relating to several questions on the CAP survey. These questions address respondents' sense of personal strain; whether they would become an academic if they had their time over again; their perception of whether now would be a good time for a young person to enter academia; and their overall satisfaction with their current job. Respondents reported their perceptions on a five-point Likert scale, from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).

Australia sits in a group with Portugal and China on the low end of the satisfaction scale. Only UK academics reported lower levels of satisfaction. Australia is considerably below the overall mean for all countries. Academics from Mexico reported the highest levels of job satisfaction.

Perhaps another telling perception of Australian academics was that they believed that things had got worse. In response to a question about changes in working conditions, 64% of Australian respondents believed that things had deteriorated or very much deteriorated [12]. This response was topped only by academics from the UK, of whom 68% thought that their situation had deteriorated [13]. Other high-scoring nations on this question were Japan and Italy, where 63 and 56% of academics, respectively, reported that there had been a deterioration in working conditions [14].

At the other of the scale, only 9% of Australian academics thought that working conditions had improved or very much improved. This was the lowest result of any nation in the CAP survey. Even 15% of British academics thought that working conditions had improved since they'd started their career [15].

The literature summarised by Long [16] suggests that job satisfaction is critical to an individual's overall well-being, and it also has important implications for organisational productivity and performance. A positive experience of work is important from both the individual's and organisation's perspectives.

Studies have also indicated a U-shaped relationship between job satisfaction and age. Younger and older groups in the academic workforce perceive their work more positively than do the groups in between and there is a negative relationship between higher levels of education and satisfaction with work. This relationship, however, essentially disappears if the level of education is in line with the knowledge and skills required for the job, that is, if people are not over-educated for their job.

Crucially, dissatisfaction has been articulated by the new generation as shown in Figure 4, assuming that junior ranks provide a reasonable proxy for age. Academics in lower ranks (that is, assistant lecturers and lecturers) and middle ranks (senior lecturers) report lower satisfaction than those in the upper ranks (associate professors and professors).

This perception has been matched in other studies. For example, interviews with postgraduate research students and early career researchers in the field of science and mathematics undertaken by Edwards and Smith also found perceptions of an increasingly unmanageable workload being absorbed by academics at all levels [17]. With the increasing need to juggle teaching, research and administrative duties (see also Lazarsfeld-Jensen and Morgan) [18], the desirability of the academic profession is waning at a time when the need to attract young people to this work has never been more acute.

Other research has found that academics increasingly find themselves on a 'post doc treadmill', perhaps an indication that the post doctoral pathway no longer represents a stepping stone into continuing academic positions to the extent that it once did. The relative decline in the number of continuing positions in universities is a prime reason for this situation. Views of this type are supported by research in Australia [19] and elsewhere in the world [20] especially in relation to the sciences. According to this literature, if the increase in short-term academic positions continues, it is likely that many young researchers will be discouraged from following an academic career.

Discussion

Academia in Australia, it appears, is not the most satisfying workplace when compared to higher education systems elsewhere. While links between job satisfaction and other facets of people's work are complex, the results set out above do not bode well for the academic profession in Australia, or for universities themselves.

This presents a two-sided problem. On the one hand, if casual staff are providing up to half of university teaching [21], a potential quality issue arises. If universities' main business is handled by its least-connected workforce segment, a lot could be at stake. Consistency is more difficult to achieve if teaching in individual subjects is split between several individuals, many of whom might not be present in the teaching department other than at class time. On the other hand, the coordination required by this model increases the pressure on the permanent academic staff member responsible for subject management and casual staff supervision.

Fees (predominantly tuition fees) paid by both domestic and overseas students provided universities with more than one-third of total university revenue in 2007 (including HECS-Help and Fee-Help loans) [22]. Yet, to what extent do students get value for money in terms of access to Australia's core and leading academics?

Overall, student evaluations such as through the Course Experience Questionnaire do not suggest an imminent problem, although international benchmarking through the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement [23] exposes several key areas of apparent risk. But there might well be a problem looming. Hugo has calculated that universities are likely to lose between a fifth and a third of their staff in the next decade or so [24]. Extrapolating from Hugo's figures, some 50% of our senior academics will retire over the next decade.

Australia is not unique in this respect, as most developed economies will see a comparable exodus from their academic workforce. This alone will increase the global competition for the best and the brightest. And as argued above, based on the results of the CAP survey, Australia is not in an enviable position compared to most of our direct competitor systems if one subscribes to the notion that job satisfaction is an important indicator of the attractiveness of a system. All of this leaves aside the challenges that the government's ambitious goals for increases in participation pose: who will be teaching all these new students?

To date, the principal response from university managements has been to appoint more casual staff, thereby increasing the squeeze on continuing staff. This may be understandable in the face of the harsh financial climate which universities continue to face. But it is not a response that can be sustained over time.

The retirement projections can be seen as a problem if the academic profession is being perceived as relatively unattractive by the next generation. They can also be seen as a massive opportunity to reshape career trajectories and reinvigorate the profession if a more proactive stance is taken by universities. Crucial ingredients in this are increased flexibility in employment arrangements to facilitate female participation in the academic workforce, a further expansion of post-doctoral positions, and a stronger focus on the teaching function itself through enhanced training and support for those at the coalface.

All the indications are that academic work is now perceived as being less likely to lead to a real career than in the past. That this is happening at the same time as student numbers are growing and as academics on continuing appointments age presents a serious problem.

* Hamish Coates is principal research fellow at the Australian Council for Educational Research; Ian R Dobson is an honorary research fellow at the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University in Melbourne; and Lyn Meek is director and Leo Goedegbure deputy director of the LH Martin Institute at the University of Melbourne.

* "Australia's Casual Approach to its Academic Teaching Workforce" is published in the latest edition of the journal People and Place, produced by the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University in Melbourne. It is republished with permission.


References

1- M. Trow, 'From mass higher education to universal access: the American advantage', Research and Occasional Paper Series, CSHE.1.00 Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education, 2000. Trow's theoretical perspective was that massification has occurred in a higher education system once higher education is seen as a right among many classes of society, not just the elite. Higher education starts to become universal once access is possible for 50% or more of the appropriate age cohorts of the population.
2- Ibid.
3- D. Bradley, P. Noonan, H. Nugent and B. Scales, Review of Higher Education in Australia: Final Report. Canberra, Australian Government, 2008; Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), Transforming Australia's Higher Education System, Canberra, DEEWR, 2009.
4- Higher Education Staff Collection, Canberra: DEEWR, various years.
5- ABS, Measures of Australia's Progress, 2009 accessed 6 December 2009 at: betaworks.abs.gov.au
6- Ibid.
7- A. Percy, M Scoufis, S.Parry, A. Goody, M. Hicks, I. Macdonald, K. Martinez, N. Szorenyi-Reischl, Y. Ryan, S. Wills and L. Sheridan, The RED report: recognition o enhancement o development: the contribution of sessional teachers to higher education', Australia Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC), Canberra, 2008. p 3.
8- Ibid.
9- A. Junor, 'Casual university work: choice risk and equity and the case for regulation', The Economics and Labour Review, vol. 14, no. 2, 2004, pp. 276-304.
10- J. Gappa and D. Leslie, 'The invisible faculty: improving the status of part-timers in higher education', 1993 Jossey-Bass, Hobeken, NJ, USA.
11- A. Lazarsfeld Jensen and K. Morgan, 'Overload: the role of work-volume escalation and micro-management of academic work patterns in loss of morale and collegiality at UWS: The way forward', South Melbourne, National Tertiary Education Union, 2009, p. 54.
12- INCHER (International Centre of Higher education Research), The Changing Academic Profession (CAP), Tables by Country (0) - Unweighted Data Table 52. University of Kassel, Germany Accessed September 2009 at www.uni-kassel.de.
13- Ibid.
14- Ibid.
15- Ibid.
16- A. Long, 'Happily ever after? A study of job satisfaction in Australia',The Economic Record, vol. 81, no. 255, 2005, pp. 303-321.
17- D. Edwards and T.F. Smith, Consultation Report: Supply, demand and approaches to employment by people with postgraduate research qualifications in science and mathematics', Canberra, DEEWR, 2008.
18- Lazarsfeld-Jensen and Morgan, 2009, op. cit.
19- Edwards and Smith, 2008, op. cit; D. Edwards and T.F. Smith, 'Literature review and data analysis, supply, demand and approaches to employment by people with postgraduate research qualifications in science and mathematics', Canberra, DEEWR, 2008; G. Laudel and J. Glaser, 'From apprentice to colleague: the metamorphosis of early career researchers', Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, vol. 55, no. 3, 2008, p. 387; C. McInnis, R. Hartley and M. Anderson, What did you do with your science degree? A national study of employment outcomes for science degree holders 1990-2000, Parkville, Australian Council of Deans of Science, 2001.
20- N. Dawson, 'Post postdoc: are new scientists prepared for the real world?' Bioscience, vol. 57, no. 16, 2007; J. Glanz, 'Young physicists despair of tenured jobs', Science, vol. 279, no. 5354, 1998, p. 1128; J. Huisman, E. de Weert and J. Bartelse, 'Academic careers from a European perspective, Journal of Higher Education, vol. 73, no. 1, 2002, pp. 141-160; C.B. Leggon, 'The scientist as academic', American Academic Profession, vol. 221, 2001; R. McGinnis, P.D. Allison and J.S. Long. 'Postdoctoral training in bioscience: allocation and outcomes',Social Forces, vol. 60, no. 3, 1982, pp. 701-722; R. Monastersky, 'The real science crisis: bleak prospects for young researchers', Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 54, no. 4, 2007.
21- A. Percy, M Scoufis, S.Parry, A. Goody, M. Hicks, I. Macdonald, K. Martinez, N. Szorenyi-Reischl, Y. Ryan, S. Wills and L. Sheridan, 'The RED report: recognition o enhancement o development. The contribution of sessional teachers to higher education. ALTC Canberra, 2008.
22- Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), Adjusted financial statements for higher education providers as listed in the Higher Education Support Act 2003 for the 2007 reporting period, 2008,www.dest.gov.au accessed 19 November 2009.
23- H. Coates, 'Development of the Australasian survey of student engagement (AUSSE)', Higher Education, 2009.
24- G. Hugo, 'The demographic outlook for Australian universities' academic staff', CHASS occasional paper no. 6, Adelaide, Council for Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (CHASS), 2008.

COMMENT:

Interesting article and findings. We in Malaysia had also embarked on a project to look at what it takes to make an academician feel appreciated or we prefer to call it "the feel good factor". Was just wondering if we could embark on an international project to create a "feel good index" for academics.

Yang Farina

source

PROFILE - UK's National Bullying Helpline Christine Pratt Speaks Out on Lord Mandleson's denial over Workplace Bullying by PM Gordon Brown

The founder of the National Bullying Helpline who is at the centre of the storm surrounding the Prime Minister's alleged bullying.

Profile: Christine Pratt and the National

Bullying Helpline

Charity boss who claimed Downing Street staff called bullying hotline faces uncomfortable questions about her past and business interests.

Christine Pratt, the founder of the National Bullying Helpline.

The charity boss who claimed a number of Downing Street employees called her anti-bullying hotline to complain of workplace mistreatment was facing scrutiny today over her alleged behaviour and business affairs.

The most serious allegations concern claims that Christine Pratt, who runs the National Bullying Helpline (NBH), used the helpline to solicit business for the HR consultancy she runs with her husband.

One woman said that when she rang the helpline for "confidential, free advice" four years ago after being bullied at work, she was referred to Pratt's firm, HR & Diversity Management (HRDM), which provides mediation services, and paid them £250.

The Charity Commission investigated the helpline in 2008 after complaints that the NBH's website was registered by a business specialising in supporting those being bullied in the workplace. The commission found no wrongdoing but today said the charity would be reviewed "in light of the issues raised over the weekend and the complaints received today".

Jo Anne Brown, the founder of Just Fight On, a not-for-profit anti-bullying organisation, said she had received a number of complaints in the past three years from people upset after calling the helpline and being directed to Pratt's commercial business.

Adrian Melia, who runs Humane Resources, an employment dispute assistance service, said today he had complained to the Charity Commission some years ago about what he believed was a "conflict of interest" between the NBH and HRDM.

Pratt said that the referral arrangement had been approved by the Law Society.

Melia's concerns about the hotline were ignored led him to launch a blogwith the tagline 'The Bullying Helpline – the last thing you need if you're being bullied,' which lists various complaints made against Pratt and her charity.

Melia said he had twice raised the potential conflict of interest issue in 2007 and 2008 by writing to Professor Cary Cooper, the NBH patron who today resigned from the charity, although he received no response. Cooper today said he discussed Melia's complaints with Pratt, but the Charity Commission exonerated her in its 2008 investigation.

"Yesterday I made up my mind to leave after the breach of confidence of the highest order," Cooper said.

On the NBH website, anyone thinking of ringing is reassured: "Your call is confidential to us and you will be treated with dignity and respect at all times."

Ann Widdecombe, the Conservative MP for Maidstone and the Weald, became patron to the charity several months ago. She admitted she had recently made preliminary inquiries into the charity because of a complaint lodged with the Charity Commission "a little while ago".

"The charity commission had not found any wrongdoing and I was proceeding to look further," Widdecombe said.

Doubts were also raised over Pratt's claim to have beaten workplace bullies herself.

In 2003, an employment tribunal rejected her claim for unfair dismissal from her former employer, Sanden International (Europe Ltd). In thepublicly available judgement dismissing her appeal against the tribunal's decision, Pratt was found to have sent notes considered "discourteous and hostile" and "aggressive, accusatory and confrontational". She had also screamed in a colleague's ear.

The tribunal also dismissed Pratt's claim for discrimination on the grounds of race and sex and a claim that she had been paid less than a male comparator.

Pratt's decision to go public with the complaints relating to Downing Street sparked protests from other anti-bullying campaigners.

Another charity, Bullying UK, issued a statement saying: "We think it's a serious breach of confidentiality for an anti-bullying charity to reveal details like this where such a small number of people are involved and – much worse – could potentially be identified.

"It will deter other people from coming forward for help if they think that anti-bullying charities are going to splash their employer's name all over the media."

One woman who called the helpline in 2006 after being bullied at work, said she felt Pratt took advantage of her when she was at her most vulnerable. After two phone calls, the woman was invited to a face-to-face meeting with Pratt, who encouraged her to sign a contract for HR & Diversity Management. The contract, seen by the Guardian, says HRDM will provide "support and advice" for an initial fee of £250 and then a rate of £50 per hour.

"[Pratt] said I shouldn't go to lawyers, that they weren't experts in bullying but that she was, and she said she would go into my firm and do an independent investigation," said the woman, who did not want to be named.

Questions also emerged over the accounting practices of the NBH as the Charity Commission revealed the charity had has failed to provide financial information for the financial year which ended 30 September 2008. "We expected this information by 30 July 2009," said a spokeswoman. "If the charity's income for the year ended 30 September 2008 is under £10,000, the charity is asked to submit an Annual Update to the Commission, setting out key financial information. If the charity's income for that year is £10,000 or over, the charity is required to submit an Annual Return and Accounts.

"The Charity Commission has sent The National Bullying Helpline three reminders in respect of its outstanding information. These reminders have been sent to the charity on the 2 April 2009, 5 June 2009 and 9 August 2009 respectively. We will continue to pursue the charity for its outstanding information."

source

FALLOUT of UK Bullying Case that involves Prime Minister Gordon Brown

Bullying Row: Tory MP Resigns From Charity

Ann Widdecombe has resigned as patron of the National Bullying Helpline following allegations of a culture of bullying in Downing Street.

It means four patrons of the charity are now believed have stepped down after its founder claimed "three or four" Number 10 staff had called her helpline for advice.

Christine Pratt said she did not know if the phone calls related to the Prime Minister's own behaviour but said she had since received an email making allegations against him.

"I have personally taken a call from staff in the Prime Minister's office, staff who believe they are working in a bullying culture and that it has caused them some stress," she said.

"I am not saying Gordon Brown is a bully, I am not a judge. But I am appalled at the outright denial that is going on without due process being followed."

According to journalist Andrew Rawnsley, the Prime Minister received a "verbal warning" about his temper, a claim he has denied.

Ms Widdecombe has resigned

In an interview with the Economist, Mr Brown said: "The cabinet secretary has made it clear that he's had no inquiries, there's been no reprimand, there's been no private message to me.

"[The] story is completely wrong."

The Tory MP is the latest patron to step down from the charity following workplace stress expert Professor Cary Cooper, TV presenter Sarah Cawood and, according to the FT, Hillingdon Councillor Mary O'Connor.

In a statement, Ms Cawood said: "In light of the recent events where confidential phone calls were made public, I feel it is no longer a campaign with which I would like my name to be associated."

Mrs Pratt has responded to Ms Cawood's resignation saying she is "very disappointed" at a lack of support from the presenter.

"Her role as a patron has been disappointing and she has not got involved in spite of making many promises," she said.

"Appointing her as a patron was with hindsight a mistake."

Instead of addressing [the allegations], they are dismissing Mrs Pratt as a Tory party stooge. She is not.

A Conservative spokesman responds to Lord Mandelson

David Cameron and Nick Clegg have both suggested there should be an investigation after claims of a culture of bullying at Number 10 were made in a new book and by the founder of an anti-bullying helpline.

But Downing Street said it had never been contacted by the hotline and the head of the civil service said there was no need for an inquiry.

The Prime Minister's official spokeman said: "The Cabinet Secretary, Gus O'Donnell, would like to make it clear that he has never raised concerns with the Prime Minister about him acting in a bullying or intimidatory manner in relation to Number 10, let alone giving him any sort of verbal warning."

He also told political journalists there had been no complaints against the Prime Minister through the internal complaints procedure.

Lord Mandelson said there was "zero tolerance" of bullying across the Government and dismissed the row as a politically motivated "storm in a teacup".

"I even gather that Conservative Party press officers were active yesterday (on Sunday), guiding journalists towards Mrs Pratt, assuming that she had some fuel to throw on this fire," he said.

Mrs Pratt, who has been criticised for breaching the confidentiality of callers, has denied she had a political agenda.

Christine Pratt

The Conservatives denied Lord Mandelson's suggestion they had helped stoke the row.

"This is the default position of the Downing Street machine - to smear the messenger as they have done so many times before," a spokesman said.

"Serious allegations of bullying within Downing Street have been made by both Andrew Rawnsley and Mrs Pratt. Instead of addressing them, they are dismissing Mrs Pratt as a Tory party stooge. She is not.

"Now Peter Mandelson claims that Mrs Pratt was 'guided by some Tory Party press officer'. She was not.

"There is a simple way for Gordon Brown to clear up these serious allegations, that is by instructing Sir Phillip Mawer (the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) to investigate whether any breach of the Ministerial Code has taken place."

Mr Brown has not commented on the latest claims but gave a speech to business leaders at a global investment conference.

Staff at Downing Street have received an email from senior civil servant Jeremy Heywood reminding them of procedures for reporting their concerns, but emphasising he does not believe there is a culture of bullying in Government.

source

...another angle...

Bully? Maybe ... but victim? Definitely

Victimised ... Gordon Brown is an easy target

SO the word is that Downing Street is mired in a culture of bullying.

Aggression, violence, four-letter rants. Gordon Brown's been accused of using them all and more to try and keep control of a floundering ship.

And it may well be proved that, yes, he's turned out to be the short-fused, vindictive, foul-mouthed boss his enemies gleefully paint him as.

But let me say this in his defence.

As a nation, we've no cause to scold. Because if he's been a rotten b****** to his staff, we've been every bit as big a bunch of rotten b******s to him.

Because in my book, Gordon Brown himself has been aVICTIM of bullying throughout his time as PM.

In fact, I'd go further and state that this country has never treated a leader as unkindly as we do him.

Thatcher and Blair were hated by many and satirised by others, but both managed to at least convey an air of being respected for their strength and beliefs.

Major had the p*** ripped out of him left, right and centre, but it somehow always seemed affectionate, like he was some kind of special needs politician.

But Brown? Oh yes, he gets plenty of the hatred and the satire and the p***-ripping.

But there's about as much chance of him being shown respect and affection as there is of him winning a calligraphy prize. See? There we go again. Cheap jibe, easy target.

The poor guy gets it tight in columns like this, on comedy panel games, in offices and pubs and millions of homes.

The length and breadth of Britain, we ridicule Brown not for what he does, but for what he IS.

The dead eye that leads to the marker-pen scrawl. The saggy clothes, the saggy chops. The way his hair never seems to sit right, the way his jaw clicks in the middle of sentences.

Everything, right down to where he comes from and how he was brought up.

And ask any schoolkid who's ever been picked on for being ginger or tubby or smelly or spotty, all of the above are forms of bullying.

Sure, we don't see it that way because... well, he's a politician, eh? He knew what he was getting himself into when he took the gig. He's fair game, etc.

That's clearly what an artist called Louis Sidoli thinks, as he's just produced a poster of him done up as Hitler and claims the pair have similar qualities.

As for those within politics?

Blair jerked him around on a string for a decade. Blair's buddies have made life as awkward as possible ever since the leadership was handed over.

Jack Straw's been outed for trying lead a coup just a year into Brown's leadership. This election campaign was kicked off with another abortive attempt to unseat him.

Tory chief Dave Cameron's called for an urgent inquiry, while the Lib Dems are tut-tutting over this treatment of helpless people - not bad from the party who deposed Charles Kennedy for liking a half.

Even wee Willie Hague's had a pop, claiming Brown's "not cut out" for top office. Which is like Alan Carr bitching that Julian Clary's not cut out for rugby league.

As it goes, I don't think Brown has what it takes to lead the country either. But that doesn't make him a bad person.

Is he a bully?

Well, were I to play amateur psychologist, my guess would be that he's basically a quiet and honest man whose ambitions have outreached his abilities and who cannot handle the ruthless, pressure-cooker world he finds himself trapped in.

If that manifests itself in his temper getting the better of him, in physical or verbal outbursts, then that's something he has to deal with.

Either he works on it or he gets the hell out to preserve his sanity.

Personally, I'd take the latter option. Because there's absolutely no sign that the pressure will ever let up.

The economy will remain in crisis. The opposition will keep on baiting him. He'll never stop believing those within his own party have it in for him.

And even if he brought about world peace and cured cancer, that quirky, cartoonish personality of his will always make him a target for the kind of ridicule he'll never be able to cope with.

As for Christine Pratt, the National Bullying Helpline founder who went public over those allegations of Brown abusing his staff?

Shame on her.

She's not only abused the trust of those who made the complaints and of the PM himself, but of anyone who has ever or might ever contact her organisation. Their website states: "We never share your details with anyone else. All correspondence is confidential."

What a sick joke THAT is.

One patron of the charity has already quit and now pressure is mounting on Pratt to do the same. Ironic, isn't it, that she herself may be about to find out how much bullying can hurt?

source