I have re-posted two paragraphs from the previously posted Canberra Times article by Bill Eddy to once again stress how badly CIT has failed to confront the bullying issues and to point out (yes again) how we are yet to see results of the current investigation.
au/comment/bullying-a- practice-for-the-whole- workplace-to-solve-20130908- 2tdvb.html
Bullying a practice for the whole workplace to solve
"■ Confidential lines of communication: Many bullies are in positions of authority over their targets. So lines of communication that require reporting such problems to one's immediate superior do not work. There need to be independent people for reporting bullying."
Most people at CIT were bullied by their own managers who up to this date at CIT have been protected when staff did put in complaints. When I went to someone over the head of the bully, that person (and others) merely did everything possible to make sure justice was NOT done for me. This was not just my experience but the experience of everyone who reported bullying over at least a 10 year period.
Teachers have to fill out Performance Management Agreements at the start of each year/term or semester with their immediate manager. This is an opportunity to plan professional development and set goals for how they will facilitate the learning of their students. They have to declare how they will perform in their job and sign the document that contracst them to fulfill their obligations to their students and their workplace. Some managers at CIT have used this process as a tool to bully because as soon as they hit the management heights, they became part of a protected breed at CIT.
My question is, why shouldn't managers be required to formally and regularly show they are fulfilling their obligations to the staff they manage?
If a confidential process was put in place where the staff member filled out an appraisal of their manager 1 to 3 times a year and this went to a person responsible to make sure lower management were fulfilling their obligations to manage - I believe we would see nowhere near the bullying many of us have experienced. A pattern would quickly emerge of bad managers and instead of TWO separate investigations into CIT by ACT Government Commissioners, upper management would have been required to intervene much earlier and perhaps have resolved conflicts in house.
" ■ Consequences: There have to be real consequences for bullies that everyone can see. That way other potential bullies will be more careful to follow the rules and other potential victims will know that they will be protected."
Consequences? We are yet to see any transparent consequences for bad mangers at CIT, especially ones that "Everyone can see". The new structure being put into place as we speak at CIT looks interesting. There seem to be managers who have suffered demotion by virtue of the fact that some of the areas they have previously been responsible for have gone to other managers. One manager with a 75% disapproval rating by staff (a process demanded by the investigation) has been travelling from pillar to post in 'acting' situations. Are these real consequences? Does this person get moved around until everyone forgets how hopeless they were until they are reinstated? Another manager who has countless complaints against them that DID show quite a pattern over the years - which pattern was blatantly ignored, - though having many visits to the principals office is STILL in a management position. Would any other workplace tolerate such abuse of its staff by allowing someone with complaints against them in double digit numbers to continue in their current position?
I fear it is just more of the same at CIT.