17 September 2009

Doing nothing is not enough

Why would a person publish the material on this website? Because doing nothing does not amount to enough. Dr Gary Namie puts it succinctly in one of his blog posts:
"Doing nothing is not a neutral act when an individual pleas for relief from the emotional misery bullying inflicts. Doing nothing is denying the person credibility as an adult. Doing nothing is sustaining the status quo and defending the perpetrator, however implicitly or indirectly. How dare HR, the primary agent responsible for implementing or blocking the employer’s response to reported bullying, side with the bully (most often in management, 73%) against the employee who naively came to HR for “help”!"

(taken from an blog post on Dr Gariy Namie's website- NB the use of this quote does not indicate Dr Namie's endorsement of this blog)

10 September 2009

All that glitters ...

Much of the evidence in support of the cautionary message on this blog is taken straight from HR & Diversity Management's web sites. An objective conclusion one draws from it is that some of the people who call the National Bullying Helpline and recommend HR&DM's investigation services to their employer will be deemed by HR&DM's investigator to have a vexatious grievance and/or to be "the bully". The main parts of the evidence are the invitation to request the investigation, and the claimed results of the investigations, quoted on different web sites:
"Would you rather have an independent investigator look into your grievance or appeal - or a manager at work? If you want to request an independent, impartial, investigation - call us."
- source: National Bullying Helpline website


"During 2006 32% of the complaints investigated by HR&DM were found to be vexatious." 

- source: HR & Diversity Management website

"During 2006 25% of cases found that the instigator, the alleged victim, was in fact, the bully."

The consequences of such an outcome are largely identical to what happens when an employee is bullied by a serial bully boss: Rejected grievance; potential or actual disciplinary dismissal; increased stress & prolongation of stress related illness; increased sickness absence; loss of reputation; difficulty obtaining satisfactory reference and thus new employment; career damage; loss of income, inability to pay mortgage / rent; legal action against employer and so on. What is more, these consequences are foreseeable by anyone with an understanding of workplace bullying.

Even in isolation, one of these effects is, for most people, a once in a lifetime catastrophe. No-one would knowingly invoke a process that subjected them to the risk of one or more of these things happening. In all probability, people call the National Bullying Helpline is because they want the very opposite, i.e. they want a remedy. The only remedy many bullied employees seek is simply for the bullying to stop, so they can get on with their jobs.

No doubt there are employees with grievances about bullying who are concerned they will not be treated  fairly by their employers, for whom the idea of an independent, impartial, fair and expert investigator is very appealing, for the obvious reason that they hope the bullying will stop once their grievance is upheld. No doubt, people in this position are moved by the National Bullying Helpline's promotion of its expertise at investigations, coupled with its apparent anti-bullying stance.

Why would people take the risk?

What is not obvious to such people is the possibility that a National Bullying Helpline investigation will find wholly against the person who asks for it. There are several possible explanations as to why this does not occur to them, but two that spring to mind are (a) the helpline operator's credibility, evident through it's apparent anti-bullying stance, big name endorsements and charitable status, and (b) the caller's sincere conviction that they are being bullied. This personal conviction and trust and confidence that the helpline operator will recognise this leads people, especially in a distressed and desperate state of mind, to envisage that the investigation will certainly go in their favour.


What the NBH is happy to tell potential clients


Callers' trust and confidence in the National Bullying Helpline is inspired by claims on its web site. On its home page, the NBH claims to be:
"...the only Charity in the UK specialising in bullying at work issues as well as bullying in the community, the home and in the playground... In particular we address Bullying at Work, Investigations, Redundancy, Bullying & Harassment Investigations and discrimination of all sorts."
A pervasive claim is that the National Bullying Helpline can help, (as its name implies) with the expression "we can help" occurring at least nine times on the website.

The employees' page appeals to readers who think they are stressed and being treated  badly at work, asking:  "IS YOUR STRESS DUE TO BULLYING AT WORK ?"  The page goes on to list common problems suffered by bullied employees, suggesting: "you really should call us"; "Disciplined for raising a grievance? Call us today"; "Would you rather have an independent investigator look into your grievance or appeal - or a manager at work? If you want to request an independent, impartial, investigation - call us."; etc.

The page title in the browser is "Help for employees who are being bullied". In other words, this page is definitely intended to encourage people to call the helpline if they need help.

Further reassurance is provided through implied alignment of the NBH's ethos with those of well-known characters from the world of work related stress and workplace bullying:
  • - Professor Cary Cooper is a well known and respected workplace psychology expert. Prof Cooper's name appears at the top of the list under the heading "the Team" and at the foot of each page, where he's identified as the patron of the National Bullying Helpline;
  • - There is mention in articles of names of workplace bullying pioneers Andrea Adams and Tim Field;
  • - There is a strongly implied message that the helpline concept was jointly conceived with Tim Field: "When Tim found out he had only a few weeks to live, he spent time with Christine and David at their home in Swindon, discussing his work and his legacy. During this period the concept of the National Bullying Helpline Charity was conceived. A promise was made to Tim - to merge Tim's bully advice-line and Christine's workplace bullying helpline, to form a National Charity and to invite Tim's children to become Trustees when they come of age."
  • - There's a photo of the Field family with Christine Pratt at the bottom of one page, referring to the high profile launch at Westminster.
  • - The organisation is clearly a registered charity with a published set of activities that are precisely what a bullying helpline should be doing, i.e:"The preservation and protection of good health of those affected by bullying in the workplace and other environments, throught the provision of a helpline service, counselling, advice, mediation, education and training in the prevention of bullying and such activities considered to be bullying".  

All these elements quickly engender the trust of total strangers, including people with an anti bullying stance, and especially those who have minimal or newly acquired understanding of stress and workplace bullying as a result of personal experience.

What the NBH web site does not openly tell potential clients:
  • - Whereas the National Bullying Helpline website claims that the bullying and harassment investigations are something addressed by the charity, they are in fact undertaken by HR&Diversity Management Ltd. The latter is not a charity, and since April 2007, by virtue of the introduction of the Claims Management Regulations 2006, the company has not been permitted to sell advice to individuals about potential employment claims and related matters. (These regulations are applied nationally and HR&DM has simply not obtained the authorisation necessary to deal directly with individuals. Law firms, Trade Unions, not for profit advice services and Charities are exempt from the regulations.) Where a caller agrees to or asks for an "independent investigation",  HR&DM undertakes the work on contract to the caller's employer, under which it acts for the employer and not the employee.
  • - By virtue of the statements quoted at the beginning of this article, there is a distinct possibility that a person who sincerely believes they are being bullied at work calls the helpline, promotes HR&DM's services to their employer, and at the end of the investigation will be deemed to be a  bully, with a vexatious grievance. In a case where HR&DM founder Christine Pratt did just that to her helpline client, the right of appeal offered was to "another member of HR & Diversity Management Ltd". In the same case, while Mrs Pratt advises that employees keep a diary of the bullying, in relation to her helpline client she deemed that it was "a gross misconduct matter".
  • - Prof Cooper, knowing more than most about the causes and effects of stress at work, endorses the concept of a charitable bullying helpline and for just this reason he allowed the National Bullying Helpline to name him as their Patron. The NBH website has his name at the top of the list under the heading "The Team", but he not only does not head up the charity, he claims to have no connection at all with its management or operations.
  • - Andrea Adams and Tim Field were pioneer anti-bullying campaigners. Through their books and other works they gave unconditional and essential help to countless thousands of people. The NBH's claim to be working "in memory" of these people is made without the endorsement of those who maintain their respective legacies: The Andrea Adams Trust website and Tim Field's bullyonline website both state that they are not connected with and do not endorse the National Bullying Helpline.
  • - Tim Field's own workplace bullying advice line led to freely available groundbreaking insights and resources, derived from researching the 9000+ calls he handled himself. By contrast, the National Bullying Helpline website has a form for employees to request a "free step by step guide", in return for their name, the name of their employer and an e-mail address. The guide (our copy was written in  2006 and issued in 2007) is 1237 words, 252 of which recommend the perceived benefits of an "Independent Investigation" by HR&DM.
  • - The Pratts' arrangements for involving Tim's widow and under-age children in the National Bullying Helpline were concluded within 10 months of his death. The Field family were never involved in the operations of the National Bullying Helpline, and since 2008, when Mrs Field resigned as a trustee, have had no involvement at all. 
Notwithstanding the website's long lists of "organisations we have worked with" and its impressive PR campaigning and big name concept endorsements, the NBH publishes little or no information about what it actually does or has done to help employees. Save for the claims that 32% of grievances investigated by HR&DM in 2006 were vexatious, and in 25% of cases the person who instigated the investigation "was, in fact, the bully", there are no statistics, no trends and no free advice apart from "we can help - call us today". Testimonials relating to good jobs done are predominantly from employers. The website includes one testimonial from a person who saw Mrs Pratt on TV and who, like Prof Cooper, obviously thinks a bullying helpline is a good idea.


In summary, the National Bullying Helpline web site discloses claims capable of convincing members of the public, needing help with employment relations issues, to contact the helpline operator in the belief that it will be beneficial to do so. However, notwithstanding the web site's claim that the helpline's processes are "open and transparent", the NBH does not spell out risks such as those outlined at the beginning of this article.

3 September 2009

Sad, Lonely, Mentally Unstable Individuals

[Update 16 Sept: The page referred to below was updated after I wrote to the trustees letting them know about this blog and the reasons. NBH has removed the disdainful references indirectly aimed at the presumed author, and put some interesting comments in their place.]

The National Bullying Helpline website has recently been updated with an article under the headline "CYBERBULLYING". It includes spiteful references to blogs and bloggers. Most readers would regard the article as indirect and general, but it contains a subliminal and disdainful personal message for a former client of the National Bullying Helpline, who is wrongly presumed to be the author of this blog. The article and particularly the subliminal message further demonstrate why potential clients of the helpline should think very carefully. The article reads:
"If an individual writes a blog about your organisation, or harasses someone under the guise of a blog in an attempt to try to convince others that they are a victim of circumstance, they are delusional."
Wow! Is every topical blogger delusional? Are there no true victims of circumstance who also blog? 

The author of this blog is not a victim, and does not purport to be a victim of the National Bullying Helpline or its operator. The author has been approached by and has assisted people who got a very raw deal from Christine Pratt, and has heard from others who work in the target support sector who themselves were approached by targets who felt thoroughly exploited by Mrs Pratt, and who then felt threatened if they were to complain. Targets of bullying are often depressed and anxious, and some are suicidal. The National Bullying Helpline elicits their calls on the premise that they will be helped, which is what they want and need, and what they reasonably expect from a registered charity "helpline".  In the event that the helpline operator treats them the way X was treated, the risk of further psycholocical harm is very high. This concern is based on actual events, and is genuine and serious. The only reason to express it this way is to help prevent others being treated the same way as X.

The article continues:
"For example, we recently heard of a case where an individual wrote a blog about her former employer because she was found to be a bully through a formal investigation process. She was subsequently disciplined and later dismissed. In an act of retaliatory treatment and revenge she wrote a blog that was totally misleading and inaccurate."
What you're reading now is not about the former employer of any person featured in or responsible for the blog. Helpline client "X" was not ultimately disciplined nor was she dismissed, in spite of Christine Pratt's best efforts. This blog was not written or even suggested by her, and it presents a balanced and fair (to the public) picture of the risks of following the National Bullying Helpline's advice to have an HR&DM investigation.
"Bloggers will, typically, convince themselves that they are a victim and that their blog is permissible under their 'freedom of speach' [sic] but they will also, very typically, refuse to reveal their name and/or write the blog under a pseudonym. They will also, typically, block the target of their blog from responding."
Anyone and everyone is invited to make contact. The way to do that is straightforward and explained on the profile page. The main reason for concealing my identity are simple - this blog is not about me, and I am not an attention seeker.
"Furthermore, bloggers will typically portray only half a story."
YES! In this case, it is the half of the story the National Bullying Helpline operator does not tell the public. The blog contains links to the good half of the story on the National Bullying Helpline website.
"The perpetrators of Cyberbullying bring shame to no one but themselves."
What Tim Field wrote about shame

"Bullying results in fear, shame, embarrassment and guilt which increase whilst the bullying continues. Bullies recognise these symptoms and use them to disempower their victim."


The NBH article goes on:
"The perpetrators of Cyberbullying are often unable to accept constructive criticism..."
As yet, the author has not received any criticism, constructive or otherwise, but it would be welcome. Should any inaccuracy be noticed, please contact the author and, subject to verification of any alleged error, it will be corrected as soon as possible. Also, if a blog is not the right way to make the public aware of this issue, then anyone who can advise the most appropriate official channel, please get in touch.
"...and they are often sad, lonely, mentally unstable individuals - incapable of separating fact from fiction. They are bullies in the truest sense and, we all know, bullies are cowards."
Tim Field, "Bully In Sight" page 201, the fifteen step bully identification process:
1. Surprise. 2. Denial, 3. Projection, 4. Sympathy, 5. Alarm, 6. Threat, 7. Provocation, 8. Delay, 9. Panic, 10. Defence, 11. Confusion. 12. Diversion, 13. Counter attack, 14. Humility, 15. Play victim.

The sentence is more astonishing when one remembers that it was written in the apparent belief that it was about someone who called the National Bullying Helpline and introduced HR&DM to a contract worth about £8000. Under the contract, the Helpline operator deemed that X's grievance was vexatious, like (at least) 32% of grievances HR&DM investigated in 2006. The helpline operator recommended that X was disciplined for gross misconduct. Now, when X is presumed to be the person exposing the process behind her horrendous experience, the "helpline" portrays her as "sad, lonely, mentally unstable, a bully and a coward." 

"If you or your company is targeted by a Cyber Bully, do not reproach yourself. Ask yourself wither the perpetrator has an axe to grind. The answer is invariably yes."

Even though X does not have an axe to grind, it would not be surprising if she did, given what HR&DM wrote about her while she thought she was receiving help from their charity helpline. In this case however, the blog is here for the sake of innocent and vulnerable members of society who may be taken in by the helpline's  manufactured credibility. They are entitled to know the risk of following the same advice, and presently this is the only publication that spells out the risk.
"Cyberbullying, if believed by a reasonable person to be an act of victimisation or harassment, may be regarded as a criminal offense under The Harassment Act."

Incomplete & inaccurate citation noted.

There's a curious footnote below the NBH's new paragraph on cyberbullying, in which (as above) the writer refers to bullying as unacceptable and inexcusable, and says that bullies are delusional, often sad, lonely, mentally unstable individuals - incapable of separating fact from fiction, and cowards... even criminals... The footnote says:
"WHAT ABOUT THE BULLY?
Have you been accused of being a bully? This can be extremely distressing and, often, the allegation is unwarranted. Remember, you have rights too - whatever your status in the organisation. ASK for a FREE copy of: What to do if accused of being a Bully. It really does contain some practical tips and advice. Email us for a copy."
Poor alleged bullies ...

1 September 2009

Mistaken or Vexatious?

HR & Diversity Management's web site says: "At HR&DM we have designed a model which ascertains, very early on, whether an employee grievance is vexatious or not."

How would this help someone who called the National Bullying Helpline, and who was persauded to introduce HR&DM to their employer for the purpose of conducting an investigation into their grievance?

It would be really helpful to people who called the National Bullying Helpline if they could be told that their grievance was vexatious before their employer engaged HR&DM's services, rather than waiting until the end of a costly investigation.

For an employment tribunal to find as fact that an employee's grievance was "vexatious", there would have to be facts to show that the grievance was not aired in good faith. This means the grievance would have to have been raised for personal gain, or out of persistent resentment for the person complained about.

Whistleblowing legislation includes a provision for reasonable belief. A disclosure to one's employer need not be factually correct, so long as the person disclosing the information reasonably believes it to be true. This makes it safe for someone to raise a concern out of reasonable suspicion without fear of victimisation. For example, if an accounting clerk suspects that money is being stolen, he can report it before establishing that it actually is being stolen, and he need not fear getting into trouble for doing so. Similarly, if an employee reports that their employer's conduct is calculated or likely to seriously damage or destroy the relationship of trust and confidence, and the reasons they do this is because by all accounts they are being bullied, then they make a protected disclosure and thus acquire the right not to be victimised for raising the concerns.

A person conducting an investigation into alleged bullying should reasonably be concerned with establishing whether the incidents complained of actually occurred, and if so, what the cumulative effect of those incidents is on the recipient. Unless there are signs that the grievance was patently fabricated for personal gain or for the sole purpose of deliberately causing harm to the subject of the complaint, an early suggestion that the grievance is "vexatious" could well be deemed as prejudicial to the outcome of the investigation.